ROSHAN ALI Versus THE STANDARD INSURANCE CO. LTD

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the tenant /appellant against the order of Rent Controller, dated 29‑11‑1984, whereby he granted the eviction application of respondent on the ground of subletting.'

2. The rent application was instituted by the respondent on two grounds namely subletting and personal and bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller, however, granted the application only on the ground of subletting and rejected it on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. In this appeal the respondent has filed cross objections challenging the findings of the Rent Controller on the issue of personal and bona fide requirement.

3. Mr. Syed Inayat Ali, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence produced by the respondent in support of the plea of subletting/ handing over possession of the premises by the appellant is not sufficient to sustain the order of Rent Controller. It is contended by the learned counsel that 4t is an admitted position on record that the appellant has long association with Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd. and is personally its Chairman. In these circumstance it is contended by Mr. Inayat Ali that mere fact that the Board of Eastern Federal Insurance Co. is displayed on the premises does not necessarily mean that the premises has been sublet or its possession has been handed over by the appellant to Eastern Federal Insurance Co. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the witness of respondent admitted in cross‑examination that the source of his knowledge regarding alleged subletting is the information conveyed to him by some employees of appellant who were not examined in the case and as such the whole case. was based on hearsay evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the case of subletting /handing over possession of the premises by the appellant was admitted by the witnesses of appellant and as such the Rent Controller rightly ordered ejectment of the appellant on this ground. After carefully examining the evidence of parties I am of the view that no interference is called for with the order of Rent Controller.

4. It is an admitted position in the case that the appellant is tenant of respondent in his personal capacity. No doubt it has come in evidence that the appellant had long association with number of companies including Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd. , but this association of appellant with the company did not entitle him to establish office of that Company in the disputed premises without consent of respondent , The Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company is a limited company and by virtue of its incorporation has a separate legal entity. The opponent himself did not come in the witness‑box to rebut the allegation of subletting but produced his private secretary in evidence who admitted in cross‑examination that a branch office of Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. is functioning in the premises in dispute. He also admitted " that this branch office was established in the year 1980. The respondent in his evidence produced telephone directories to show that until 1980 Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. had no office in the disputed premises. However in the telephone directory of 1981 a branch office of the Company was shown located in the premises in dispute with a telephone number of branch manager. The above evidence was quite sufficient to establish the allegation of subletting/parting with possession of the premises by the appellant to Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company. The Rent Controller, therefore, rightly ordered eviction of appellant from the premises on the ground of subletting/ parting with possession of the premises.

5. Mr. Ashiq Ali Abdullah, the learned counsel for respondent in support of the cross‑objection contended that the Rent Controller wrongly refused to grant ejectment application on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. It is contended by the learned counsel that the premises presently occupied by the respondent is a rented premises and they needed the premises in dispute for the personal use of respondent. It is, however, conceded by Mr. Abdullah that the evidence on record does not show that the premises occupied by the respondent is a rented premises. Apart from it the respondent according to ejectment application needed the premises to expand their existing business and the witness of respondent stated that he was told this fact by one of the Directors of the Company before institution of the case. The said Director was never produced in evidence. In these circumstances, the Reit': ‑Controller rightly refused to grant eviction application on the B ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The cross‑objections filed by the respondent accordingly has no merit. The appeal and cross‑objections are accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. The appellant is allowed 8 months time to vacate the premises subject to the condition that he shall continue to deposit monthly rent in Court during this period.

A . A . Appeal cross‑objection rejected,