Case law, eviction petition is allowed on the grounds of sublet.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Civil Petition No.917-K of 2022
[Against the Judgment dated 07.03.2022, passed by the High Court of Sindh
Karachi in Constitutional Petition No. S-931 of 2021]
Ashfaq Hussain and another.
…Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ghulam Nabi and another.
…Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Naeem Suleman, ASC
For Respondent No.1
: Mr. Aamir Asher Azeem, Advocate
High Court
Mr. K.A Wahab, AOR
Date of Hearing
: 12.06.2024.
JUDGMENT
Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.- Through this petition,
the petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 07.03.2022
(the impugned judgment), passed by the High Court of Sindh,
Karachi (the High Court), whereby constitutional petition filed by
the Respondent No. 1 (the respondent) was allowed.
2.
Facts in brief are that the petitioners are the coowners/ landlords of Shop bearing No.4, located at ground floor of
Haji Naik Muhammad Building, constructed over Plot No. RC-
4/32, situated in Aja Maoji/ Al-Shifa Street, Ranchorline,
Gazdarabad, Karachi South (subject premises/shop).The subject
premises/shop was let out to the grandfather of the respondent,
namely, Allauddin as the tenant who carried on business over
Civil Petition No.917-K of 2022
there solely. However,
after death
of the original
tenant/grandfather, the respondent occupied the subject
premises/shop as tenant without informing the landlords about
the death of his grandfather. The respondent continued to pay the
monthly rent till June 2009, at the rate of Rs.600/-. Thereafter, in
June, 2019, the respondent sublet the subject premises/shop to
three doctors, namely, Dr. Fazal Ellahi, Dr. Jaipal and Dr. Chetan
Lal for running a clinic, namely Muhammadi Clinic vide
Partnership Deed Exh.O/21 without consent or knowledge of the
landlords.
3.
Consequently,the petitioners filed a Rent Case No.656
of 2021 in the Court of Vth Rent Controller (South) at Karachi for
the eviction of tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent
as well as subletting the subject premises/shop. That ejectment
application was allowed in favour of the petitioners vide order
dated 05.04.2021. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an
appeal (First Rent Appeal No. 120/2021) in the Court of Additional
District & Session Judge-XII/Model Civil Appellate Court, District
South, Karachi (the Appellate Court), that was dismissed vide
judgment dated 20.11.2021. The respondent challenged the
judgment of the Appellate Court by filing a constitutional petition
in the High Court, which was decided in favour of the respondent
vide judgment dated 07.03.2022.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that
subject premises/shop was let out to the grandfather of the
respondent who was solely running a business in it; that the
respondent or legal heirs of the tenant has sublet the shop in
question to doctors and has malafidely shown himself as the
partner; He relied upon the cases of M.D Tahir Advocate vs.
Civil Petition No.917-K of 2022
Lahore High Court (1994 SCMR 1507), Muhammad Shafi vs.
State Life Insurance Corporation(2009 SCMR 893) and State
Life Insurance Corporation vs. Sami-Ur. Rehman (2018 SCMR
443).
5.
On the contrary, the learned counsel for the
respondent contends that the respondent has not committed any
default in payment of rent; that he has not sublet the
premises/shop but has entered into a partnership with doctors,
which does not amount to subletting. He relied upon the cases
reported as State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs.
M/S Siddiqui Tailors (PLD 1993 Karachi 642), Syed Fakhar
Mahmood Gillani vs. Abdul Ghafoor (1995 SCMR 96),
KhudaBaksh vs. Muhammad Yaqoob (1981 SCMR 179), Habib
ur Rehman vs. Mehromal (1993 SCMR 1163), Habibullah vs.
Rent Controller Peshawar and 11 other (1998 SCMR
2656),Ahmed Khan vs. Rasul Shah (PLD 1975 SC 311) and
Barkhurdar vs. Muhammad Razaq (PLD 1989 SC 749).
6.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on the record.
7.
Perusal of the evidence of the parties reveals that the
respondent has admitted that he never informed the landlords
about the death of his grandfather who was the original tenant
inducted by the petitioners. Moreover,the respondent has himself
admitted in his cross-examination that doctors have been running
clinic in the subject premises/shop with the name of Muhammadi
Clinic. The respondent produced the Registration Certificate
Exh.0/21 of the said clinic. He has also admitted that he entered
into a partnership in respect of the subject premises/shop with
three doctors, namely, Dr. Fazal Ellahi, Dr. Jaipal, and Dr. Chetan
Civil Petition No.917-K of 2022
Lal.
The respondent has also admitted that
the
petitioners/landlords were not aware about the registration of said
clinic and he never informed them about it.
8.
Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,
1979 (SRPO, 1979) envisages the various grounds on the basis of
which the landlord may seek eviction of the tenantincluding the
ground of default in payment of rent and subletting of any rented
premises without the written consent of the landlord. The case of
the petitioner is that the respondent without the consent and
knowledge of the petitioners/landlords started the business of
running of aclinic and entered into a partnership with the doctors
named above in respect of the subject premises/shop.
9.
It appears from the record that the evidence of the
parties adduced before the learned Rent Controller has not been
properly appreciated and discussed in the impugned judgment.
10.
In view of the above, the impugned judgment is hereby
set aside and the case is remanded back to the High Court to
decide it afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to both
the parties and after evaluating the evidence available on the
record within a period of 60 days excluding the period of summer
vacations.
Judge
Judge
Karachi,
12th June, 2024
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
Comments
Post a Comment