Sh. MUHAMMD SAEED vs Mst. HAMIDAN BEGUM ETC.S
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an eviction order against a tenant, Sh. Muhammad Saeed, who operated a cloth merchant business. The landlord sought ejectment on the ground of unauthorized subletting of the premises to a tailor, Muhammad Buta. The Rent Controller found that the tenant had sublet the premises without the landlord's consent, rendering him liable for eviction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. This finding was upheld by the District Judge and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in a Second Appeal, which dismissed the matter in limine on the basis that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the alleged sub-tenant was a finding of fact that could not be disturbed in Second Appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed these findings, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the tailor's presence was merely an association to boost business rather than a subletting arrangement. The Court held that the cited precedents were distinguishable on their facts and found no grounds for interference, thereby dismissing the petition while granting the tenant time to vacate.
- Can a finding of fact regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship be disturbed in a Second Appeal?
- Does the association of a tailor in a cloth merchant's shop constitute subletting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction if they allow a third party to use the rented premises without the landlord's consent?
- Section 13(1)(ii)(a), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 (PLD 1960 Kar. 276), Abdullah Bhai and others v. Ahmad Din (PLD 1964 SC 106) and Motai Bai v. Abdul Aziz and others (PLD 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.
6. 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.
7. The learned counsel also cited a judgment from the Indian Jurisdiction, namely, AIR 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.
8. 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.