ABDUL KARIM Versus MANZOOR AHMED

1. The appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondent on the ground that the respondent No. 1 who is a tenant I has sublet the premises to respondent No.2 without his consent and permission. It was also alleged that the premises is required for personal bona fide use of the appellant. The respondent denied the claim. It was pleaded that the premises was taken by the respondent No. l for use and occupation to his employees and this practice is operating since long.

2. The appellant's claim for bona fide requirement was also denied. The learned Controller dismissed the ejectment application.

3. Mr. Nizamani the learned counsel has contended that admittedly respondent No. l is the tenant but the premises is occupied by respondent No.2 and, therefore, it has been sublet by the respondent No.l. From the evidence it seems that this premises has been under the tenancy of the respondent No.l from the year 1961 and since then it has been occupied by the employees of the respondent No.l. One Muhammad Ashraf was residing here from 1961 ‑and after the termination of his service the premises was occupied by respondent No.2 who is residing there from the year 1970 and has regularly paid rent to the appellant on behalf of the respondent No.l. Even the key of this flat was also handed over by the appellant to respondent 2. The appellant is also residing in a flat in the same building and the appellant cannot be said to be unaware of these facts. In the circumstances and facts of the case the appellant cannot complain of subletting as he has waived his right by his conduct and by overt acts mentioned above.

4. As regards issue relating to bona fide requirement the appellant has stated that he requires if for his daughters Mst. Zainab and Mst. Kulsoom who have been divorced and the accommodation in his possession is not sufficient for two daughters, the appellant and his wife. The] respondent has taken the plea that after December, 1977 the appellant has let out several flats in the building. In this regard the appellant has admitted that Flat No.3 on the third floor was let out in December, 1977, Flat No. 9 which is on the same floor on which the appellant resides was let out in October, 1978 and Flat No.l was let out on 31‑1‑1981. From the documents produced it is established that the divorce of Mst. Zainab was confirmed on 31‑7‑1977 and that of Mst. Kulsoom on 23‑4‑1978. It, therefore, seems clear that if the appellant required he could have occupied Flat No.3 or 9. Flat No.9 which was let out in October, 1978, when both the daughters had been divorced, could have been occupied by the appellant. It was a most convenient flat as it was on the same floor on which the appellant resides. These facts clearly establish that the requirement of the appellant is not bona fide. For these reasons by a short order passed earlier the appeal was dismissed.

5. H.B.T. Appeal dismissed.