— کرایہ دار کی بے دخلی اور
Concurrent Findings
مختصر پس منظر
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا
کرایہ دار کی بے دخلی
شواہد کو دوبارہ جانچنے کی حد
شواہد کے خلاف ہوں؛
فیصلہ
اہم قانونی اصول
Must read judgment.
2026 S CMR 1132
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Yahya Afridi, CJ, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Musarrat Hilali, JJ Versus
MOHAMMAD ZIAFAT-Petitioner
TARIQ NAWAZ KHAN TAREEN and others-Respondents
Civil Petition No. 3661 of 2025, decided on 11th November, 2025.
2020). (On appeal from the judgment dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Peshawar High Court Abbottabad Bench in W.P. No. 848-A of
(a) Constitution of Pakistan---
Art.199 Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court-Findings of facts-Interference Scope High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction should keep itself away from interfering in the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below concurrently after right and proper appraisal of evidence and cannot substitute and supplement its own findings.
(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-
-S.13-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Ejectment of tenant---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below-Interference---Petitioner/tenant was aggrieved of eviction order passed against him by Lower Appellate Court and maintained by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction-Validity-It is not within the domain or function of Appellate Court and/or High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction to re-weigh or re-interpret evidence but they can examine whether judgment or order attains benchmark of an unflawed judgment and whether it is inconsonance with law and evidence and free from unjust and unfair errors apparent on the face of record---Petitioner/tenant failed to point out any lawful justification for interference in concurrent findings recorded by Lower Appellate Court and affirmed by High Court which were in accordance with law-All relevant factors and grounds raised were properly considered and answered by High Court---Supreme Court can not go behind concurrent findings of facts unless it is shown that such findings on their face are against evidence or so patently improbable or perverse that to accept it could amount to perpetuating a grave miscarriage of justice or if there had been any misapplication of principle relating to appreciation of evidence, or finally if findings could be demonstrated to be physically impossible or against the law Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgments passed by Lower Appellate Court and High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
Messrs F. K. Irani & Co. v. Begum Feroze 1996 SCMR 1178; Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCMR 1062; Muhammad Shoaib Alam v. Muhammad Iqbal 2000 SCMR 903; Messrs Al-Karam Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. v. East West Insurance Co. Ltd 2001 SCMR 688; Messrs Tiger Wire Product Ltd. v. S. Abrar Hussain 1983 SCMR 402; Abdul Razzaq v. Muhammad Aslam 1995 SCMR 201; Rajah Ali v. Darius B. Kandawalla PLD 1984 Kar. 14; Sabu Mal v. Kika Ram alias Heman Das 1973 SCMR 185; Peerzada Rafiq Ahmad v. Chaudhry Abdul Rehman 1980 SCMR 772; Ishratullah Siddiqui v. Alibhoy 1996 SCMR 1833; Unisam Enterprises v. Bank of Punjab 1999 SCMR 1119 and Mehdi Nasir Rizvi v. Muhammad Usman Siddiqui 2000 ŚCMR 1613 ref.
Ms. Saira Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Mehmood Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Abdul Rehman Qadar, Advocate Supreme Court and Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.