Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 233 of 1978, decided on 6th May, 1978.

(On appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 8‑4‑1978, passed in S. A. O. No. 166,11978 dismissing the appeal in limine).

----‑S.13(1),(ii)(a)‑Ejectment proceedings‑Subletting‑Argument regard ing petitioner s business being that of a cloth merchant, and association of tailor alleged sub‑tenant, being merely to boost up business hence tailor could not be termed as sub‑tenant‑Lower Court's findings holding subletting of premises‑Finding of fact‑No ground for interference, held, made out‑Petition dismissed.

Boman Abadan Irani v. Jahangri J. Mobed and another P L D 1960 Kar. 1276; Abdullah Rhai and others v. Ahmad Din P L D 1964 S C 106; Motal Bai v. Abdul Aziz and others P L D 1968 Kar. 635 and A I R 1959 Pb. 508 distinguished.

Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Maiik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 to 14.

Date of hearing : 6th May 1978.

‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 8‑4‑1978, passed by a Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby the Second Appeal (S.A. O. No. 166 of 1978) filed by the petitioner against the order of his eviction was dismissed.

The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, very briefly stated, are that the petitioner was a tenant of the premises consisting of a shop and a chaubara, belonging to Hafiz Muhammad Shaft (now deceased and represented by his legal representatives‑respondents I to 11 herein). The petitioner was carrying on the business of a cloth merchant in the shop in question. An application for his ejectment was filed by Hafiz Muhammad Shaft, inter alia, on the ground of subletting the premises to Muhammad Buta (respondent No. 12 herein), in answer to the above plea, it was submitted that respondent No. 12 was a lessee under the petitioner carrying on the tailoring business. in order to supplement the cloth business of the petitioner and also that it was a normal practice in the business of cloth merchants that tailor are associated in the shop in order to boost up the business.

The learned Rent Controller, however, held that the petitioner had sublet premises to respondent No. 12, in allowing him to use the shop in dispute without the consent and permission of the landlord and thus he was liable to be ejected under section 13(1) (ii)(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.

The said finding was upheld, on appeal, by the learned District Judge, and a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed, in limine, the Second Appeal preferred against the above decision, on the ground that it was found on the basis of the circumstances of this case that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and Muhammad Buta (respondent No. 12), and this finding being one of fact could not be disturbed in Second Appeal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

Before us, it was argued that it was established on the record that respondent No. 12 had been brought in the premises and associated with the work, but the petitioner's business being that of a cloth merchant, the association of the tailor was merely to boost up the business. As there was no allegation of rights in the premises, respondent No. 12 could not be termed as a sub‑tenant. In support of this submission reliance was placed on Boman Abadan Irani v. Jahangri J. Mobed and another (P L D 1960 Kar. 276), Abdullah Bhai and others v. Ahmad Din (P L D 1964 S C 106) and Motai Bai v. Abdul Aziz and others (P L D 1968 Kar. 635). These judgments were also relied upon before the learned Single Judge, but were held to be inapplicable in the circumstances of this case.

We share his view and are of the opinion that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not advance his case, as they proceed on their own peculiar facts.

The learned counsel also cited a judgment from the Indian Jurisdiction, namely, A I R 1959 (Pb.) 508 and read out the Head Note of this decision before us. We find that this decision is also not apt in the circumstances of the present case.

No ground for interference is, therefore, made out. This accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed to vacate the premises provided he continues to pay rent the 15th of each calendar month.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.