1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-.This is a petition for special leave directed against the order dated 19th of April, 1979 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, whereby he has dismissed in limine the Writ Petition No. 2063 of 1979 filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein.
2. On the 6th of December, 1975 Sh. Abdul Razzaq respondent No. 3 brought an application for the ejectment of the present petitioner under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 from shop No. 735 Saddar Bazar, Multan Cant. Inter alia, on the main ground that he had illegally sublet a part of the premises to llahi Bakhsh son of Akhtar who is running the embroidery works at the premises as his sub--tenant. The petitioner admitted the tenancy but denied the allegations which gave rise to Issue No. 3 framed on this part of the case by learned Rent Controller, Multan.
3. After recording the evidence he found this issue in favour of respondent No. 3 and ordered his ejectmeat from the premises on the 2nd of September 1978. The order was upheld in appeal of the petitioner which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Multan, on the 18th of March, 1979.
4. The petitioner then filed the Writ- Petition No. 2063 of 1979 challeng--ing the validity of the two orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. But as stated above the learned Judge of the. Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissed the writ petition in limine on the 19th of April, 1979. Hence this petition for special leave from , the . Order- passed by the High Court.
5. We find that under Issue No. 3; the learned- Rent Controller concluded from the. Oral and documentary evidence that Ilahi Bakhsh, Watch Repairer and Akhtar Embroider were occupying, the portions of the shop in dispute as sub-tenants under the petitioner. The finding was upheld in appeal by the District Judge. . He in particular observed that on the platform attached to the shop Ilahi Bakhsh, Watch maker has raised a cabin which was partly abutting on to the road. From this it was argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the land under the cabin projecting on to the road vested in the Cantonment and was occupied by him as a licensee under it and not as a sub-tenant under respondent No. 3. But in the opinion of the learned District Judge the; petitioner failed to establish that Ilahi Bakhsh was occupying the place of his business in any independent capacity on leh-bazari basis under the Cantonment or under any permission of the Cantonment Board. Multan.i The Court, therefore, had no hesitation in finding that Ilahi Bakhsh was a sub-lessee on a part of the premises in dispute under the petitioner. Similarly, on going through the statement of P. W. 1 Hassan Akhtar, the learned District Judge concluded that he too was running his own embroidery business in the premises as a sub-tenant under the petitioner.
6. In this connection the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in dismissing the writ petition observed that the matter in dispute under Issue No. 3 was concluded by the concurrent finding of fact about the portions of the shop having been sublet by the petitioner to the two persons named in the ejectment petition. In this connection however, before us the learned counsel for the petitioner . Relied on Snit. Radhey Piari v. Kalyan Singh AIR 1959 Pb. 508 and Abdullah Bhai and others v. Ahmad Din PLD 1964 SC 106 to contend that there was a line of demarcation between a lease and a licence, and that in the first cited case it was also observed that mere permission by the tenant to keep the show-case of a watch repairer in leased shop for safety during the night cannot amount to subletting or parting with the possession of the demised shop or any part thereof. But both these cases are distinguishable on facts. The two Courts below were satisfied from the evidence that the petitioner had sublet portions of the premises to Ilahi Bakhsh and Hassan Akhtar who were running their own independent business. It appears to us that this plea was raised on behalf of the petitioners as an afterthought only and cannot be entertained. In these circumstances, the petition has no force and is rejected.