608/2025 Const. P. Haroon Rasheed Through Attorney Muhammad Sohail (Petitioner) V/S Abdul Raheem & Others (Respondent)

608/2025 Const. P. Haroon Rasheed Through Attorney Muhammad Sohail (Petitioner) V/S Abdul Raheem & Others (Respondent) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) Order Date: 02-FEB-26

The principle of concurrent findings applies where both the trial and appellate Courts have reached a similar conclusion on fair rent after evaluating the evidence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that such concurrent factual findings should not be interfered with unless shown to be wholly unjustified. 16. On the facts and law, the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Court acted within the statutory scheme of Section???8, SRPO, 1979. Their consideration of prevailing market rent, evidence of comparable premises, and evaluation of costs and taxes was a lawful exercise of judicial discretion. The Petitioner???s objections regarding the age and condition of the premises go to the weight of evidence, not to jurisdiction or legal validity of the fixation order. Enhancement of fair rent on cross objection, and refusal to accept unsubstantiated comparisons offered by the tenant, do not amount to misreading of facts or illegal exercise of discretion. On established rent jurisprudence, concurrent findings affirmed on appeal deserve deference absent clear legal error. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 10.03.2025 and 24.05.2025 are legally sustainable, factually supported, and do not exhibit any jurisdictional error, perversity, or misapplication of law warranting interference. The petition seeking to set aside these judgments lacks merit and is dismissed along with pending application(s).