MUHAMMAD ASLAM And Others vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a rent restriction matter, challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant had sublet the premises without the landlord's consent and whether rent tendered by the alleged subtenant constituted a default. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner-tenant had unlawfully made another person a partner in the tenancy and went abroad, with rent remitted by the said partner, constituting a clear case of subletting without the landlord's consent. Consequently, the tender of rent by the unauthorized subtenant was lawfully refused by the landlord, amounting to a default in the payment of rent. The court laid down the principle that inducting a partner into a tenancy without the landlord's consent, coupled with the tenant leaving abroad and rent being paid by that partner, constitutes subletting, and rent tendered by such an unauthorized person can be lawfully refused, amounting to default. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
- Does inducting a partner into a tenancy without the landlord's consent amount to subletting?
- Can a landlord lawfully refuse rent tendered by an unauthorized subtenant?
- Does the remittance of rent by an unassociated partner during the tenant's absence constitute default in payment of rent?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal calls in question judgment, dated 9-1-1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a rent restriction matter filed by the present petitioners, was dismissed.
2. The dispute raised before us is that the findings of the High Court that although Muhammad Aslam petitioner was the tenant, he had sublet the premises to Muhammad Rafique petitioner; and further that the tender of rent by the latter was in contravention of the tenancy, and thus it amounted to default in payment of rent, not supported by facts and law.
3. After hearing the learned counsel we do not agree with him., The examination of the argument of partnership so-called, reveals that Muhammad Aslam did not keep the tenancy to himself but made Muhammad Rafiq a partner in the tenancy also without associating the landlord or obtaining his consent. Muhammad Aslam admittedly had gone abroad; and, the rent was being remitted by Muhammad Rafique. These facts constituted sufficient material to come to a finding that it was a flea case of subletting by Muhammad Aslam to Muhammad Rafique.
4. That being so, the tender of rent by Muhammad Rafique when the tenant was Muhammad Aslam, could be lawfully refused by respondent No. 1, the landlord. Therefore, on both the questions of rent default and subletting, the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.