ROSHAN ALI BHIMJEE vs STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an eviction order issued by a Rent Controller. The respondent-company had sought the petitioner's eviction on two grounds: bona fide personal requirement and unauthorized subletting of the premises to the Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company. While the Rent Controller rejected the claim of bona fide requirement, he ordered eviction based on the finding of unauthorized subletting. The High Court affirmed this decision, concluding that the petitioner had parted with possession of the premises. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that his role as Chairman of the insurance company did not constitute subletting or parting with possession, as he remained in personal possession of the premises. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the legal interpretation of 'parting with possession' in the context of his corporate role deserved further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and stayed the eviction order pending the final decision of the appeal.
- Does a tenant's professional association with a company and the display of that company's signage on the premises constitute 'parting with possession' or 'subletting' under rent control laws?
- Can a tenant be evicted for subletting if they remain in personal possession of the demised premises while acting as an officer of a company using the same space?
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKTI,J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the Judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 15-1-1986 by which petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order of the learned Rent Controller directing his eviction from the demised premises was upheld. Facts briefly stated are as under:-- ' In January, 1981, respondent-company filed an ejectment application against petitioner on the ground that they bona fide required the demised premises for their use and petitioner was also liable to eviction as he had unauthorisedly handed over possession of the premises to Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company. Petitioner denied both these assertions. As regards the second allegation he asserted as under:-- "It is submitted that the opponent (petitioner) has been the Managing Director of Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd., for several years past and is currently its Chairman for the last about six years. The opponent (petitioner) has been and is doing business of all the companies, firms and associations including Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd., of which he is either partner, owner, patron or Chairman in the premises in case since the inception of tenancy in the year 1959 and the board in question has been there all along. His accociation with the Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd., is over 19 years, a fact well-known to the applicants (respondents) and the premises were all along being used by the opponent (petitioner) for the purposes of business of Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd., in his capacity as first its General Manager, than Managing Director and now Chairman, all these long years without protest, objection and demur by the applicants and their predecessor-in-title."
2. Learned Rent Controller on the basis of evidence produced by the parties took the view that respondent had not satisfactorily proved the assertion that they bona fide requires the premises for their own use, but he accepted the other plea raised by the respondents and held that the respondent 'has been able to establish the case on the point of subletting'. He accordingly directed A petitioner's eviction by the order dated 29-11-1984. On appeal by petitioner learned Judge in the High Court also took the same view as the learned Rent Controller and held that the evidence produced on record "was quite sufficient to establish the allegation of subletting upon parting with possession of the premises by the appellant (petitioner) to Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co.", and on this view of the case he dismissed petitioner's appeal.
3. Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal submitted that the learned Single Judge in the High Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been in possession of the premises personally throughout, and by the mere fact that he is Chairman of the B Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company does not tantamount to parting with possession or handing over of the possession, of the demised premises or subletting thereof to the aforesaid company.
4. This submission, amongst other, deserves consideration. We, therefore, I grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Security Rs, 2,500.
5. The appeal will be heard in the present record, but it is open to the party ID to file additional documents.
6. ' Petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises till the appeal is decided.
7. ' Leave to .