1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment dated 14-12-1980 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind at Karachi allowing the Second Appeal No. 294 of 1974 preferred by the respondents 1 to 5 herein.
2. The facts which form the background are that respondents 1 to 5 are the heirs of late Burjorji Behramji Patel, who was the tenant of Shop No. 1, situated in Victoria Mansion, Victoria Road, Karachi, since deceased (and hereinafter referred to as the "deceased tenant", the same expression is used by the High Court in the impugned judgment). Whereas respondents 10 to 13 are the Trustees of the Also Dinshaw Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust). The present petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Mohammad Hassan Kazi, who was the holder of a liquor licence granted by the Government of Sind in 1944 and was running the business in the aforesaid shop. The said Mohammad Hasan Kazi, however, claimed to be himself a tenant of the aforesaid shop and denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the "deceased tenant" but this claim was negative, as will appear in the sequel by the Rent Controller in his order dated 24-2-1970 passed in Rent Case No. 2914 of 1967, while disposing of the preliminary issue and he was found to be a "sub-tenant" of the "deceased-tenant". Accordingly, he will be referred hereinafter as "deceased sub-tenant" an expression used for him also in the above-mentioned judgment of the Rent Controller.
3. Reverting to the facts which form the background, "deceased tenant" in the year 1944 entered into an agreement with the "deceased sub-tenant", who was acting as his manager for running the business of Victoria Refreshment Room and Bar situated in the said shop on his behalf. However, the "deceased sub=tenant" in November, 1965 terminated his services and entrusted the job of running business to Mr. Irani and Mr. Abdul Hamid, respondents 8-9 herein, as his attorneys and after his death on 12-11-1967 Mst. Zubeda, daughter of Mohammad Hassan Kazi (petitioner No. 1 (e) hereinabove) as the liquor license was transferred by the consent of all other heirs in her name maintained the same position.
4. The "deceased sub-tenant" in the meanwhile in or about by the end of November, 1965 filed an application in the Court of the Rent Controller under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 claiming to be the tenant from the Trustees of the Alco and Dinshaw Charitable Trust (landlord and alleging that Mohammad Hasan Kazi was the sub-tenant and further claiming that the "deceased sub-tenant" had further sublet and assigned the business of the shop premises to respondents 6-9 and they were thus in breach of the terms of tenancy and were liable to be evicted there from. He also claimed the premises for his own personal use and occupation.
5. The "deceased sub-tenant" filed a written statement claiming to be the statutory tenant of the Trust and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the "deceased tenant" and himself. Moreover, he asserted that respondents 8-9 were his Attorneys while respondents 6-7 were merely assisting the Attorneys in the conduct of the business A preliminary issue was framed as regards the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the "deceased sub-tenant" and the "deceased tenant". The Rent Controller, as already mentioned above, by his order dated 24-2-1970 held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the "deceased tenant" and the "deceased sub-tenant". Thereafter, the following two more issues were framed :- Issue No. l.-Whether the deceased, Opponent No. 1, assigned and subverted his business of the shop in question without the consent of the deceased applicant ?
6. Issue No. 2.-To what relief are the applicants entitled ?
7. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the argu--ments addressed on their behalf, the learned Controller by his order dated 31-7-1973 dismissed the application filed by the deceased tenant on the ground that he had failed to prove the subletting.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the deceased- tenant filed a Rent Appeal No. 456 of 1972 which was also dismissed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Karachi, by his judgment dated 31-10-1974. Feeling further aggrieved by this judgment, the "deceased tenant" .Filed a Second Appeal No. 294 of 1974 in the High Court of Sind at Karachi. A learned Single Judge of the said High Court, in a detailed and elaborate judgment passed on 14-12-1980, wherein he fully set out all the documentary and oral evidence, upset the orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge finding that the deceased, Opponent No. 1, in the said proceedings (namely, the deceased sub-tenant) had, indeed, sublet the shop in question without the consent of the applicant -(viz. The "deceased-tenant"). His conclusion was expressed thus:- "In the instant case, the two Courts below have failed to take into consideration the material documents on the record and/or have ignored the same. The new case for the respondents not pleaded by them have found favour with the two Courts below. The finding arrived at is contrary to the record."
9. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed and the orders to the Courts below set aside and respondents 1 to 5 ordered to hand over the possession of the shop as prayed for. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
10. In support of this petition, Mr. N. A. Sayed has contended that as a finding of subletting forfeits the right of tenancy, the documents relied upon in support of the contention of subletting should have been interpreted very strictly and if these documents admitted of only a single hypothesis and were not capable of any other hypothesis then alone could a finding of subletting be given.
11. Unfortunately, for the petitioners they have not placed copies of the documents or, indeed, any part of the evidence on the record. However, copious references have been made to the evidence in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In fact, the evidence and other circumstances have been set out in full detail no doubt is left in our mind that on the material placed on the record the finding given by the learned Judge in the High Court was the only finding that could properly and legally be returned.
12. There is, therefore, absolutely. No force in this petition which is hereby dismissed.
13. Petition disarmed.