' MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Lady Sughra Begum, the landlady, filed a rent case No,2599/1983 for ejectment against the petitioner (M/s Garden Autos, respondent No,2 in the case) and respondent No,2 (M/s Consolidated Commercial Co. Ltd, respondent No,1 in the case) in respect of ground floor constructed on plot No, 27, Pr-II Garden Road, Karachi on the grounds of unauthorized subletting and making illegal alteration and addition thereby impairing the material value and utility of the premises. Respondent No,2 in its written statement admitted the case of the landlady to the extent of handing over possession of the premises to the petitioner, but has stressed that it was on the condition that within 15 days thereof the petitioner would enter into a rent agreement with the landlady. The stance of the petitioner in its written reply was that it was in possession of the premises for the last 9 years and the landlady was fully aware of it; that it had been paying rent to the landlady with its own 'name and style' and to prove this fact it had in its possession such receipts, Against the ground of materially impairing the premises by making alterations therein, the petitioner's claim is that to save human life and machinery available in the workshop, only its roof, which was made of tin-sheet and had got into dilapidated condition, was replaced with the new tin-sheet material, and before doing that the landlady was requested to do it herself but she did not oblige.
2. The case was however decided in favour of the landlady by order dated 31.05.1992, and the appeal preferred by the petitioner against that order was dismissed vide judgment 15.04.2002, prompting the petitioner to file the instant petition.
3. Mr. Shaffat Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner by citing some health issue did not make oral submissions, but submitted written synopsis in support of his case. Therein he has reiterated the facts of his case and has urged that Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Hidayatullah, the director of respondent No,2, was the grandson of the landlady (respondent No,1), they in collusion with each other filed the ejectment application against the petitioner. That complicity between the two is evident from the obliging written statement filed by respondent No,2. That Anwar Hidayatullah, who was son of the landlady, had taken over as Managing Partner of the petitioner in the year 1970 and after he left for abroad his son Ghazanfar Hidayatullah replaced him who the year 1976 took Ashraf Ali, to whom the premises is alleged to have been sublet and through whom respondent No,2 is sued, as partner. Messrs Garden Autos existed at least 7 years before filing of the rent case and the landlady was very much aware of such fact as she had been receiving rent through various cheques and pay orders with covering letters containing the name of the petitioner. The landlady knew Messrs Garden Autos was founded by her son Anwar Hidayatullah and thereafter run by her grandson Ghazanfar Hidayatullah and then by Ashraf Ali (respondent No,2). That ground of subletting the premises to the petitioner without consent of the landlady was not made out as the landlady herself before filing of the rent case had been receiving rent from the petitioner without any objection. No alteration or addition impairing the value of the premises was carried on; but on the contrary to save the human life and to protect the machinery available in the workshop, its roof made of tin sheet which had become shabby was replaced with new one. His contention is that both the courts below have not considered the evidence properly. He has cited the decisions reported in 2000 SCMR 903, PLD 2001 (Pesh.) 42, 2006 SCMR 152, PLD 1987 (SC) 447, PLD 1982 Kar.
188, PLD 1980 Kar. 126, 1985 CLC 332, 1988 CLC 2056, 1997 MLD 833, 1988 CLC 272, 1984 CLC 1073, 1989 CLC 757 and 1993 CLC 2380.
4. Mr. Abdullah Munshi learned counsel for respondent No,1 in rebuttal to above contentions argued that without permission and knowledge of the landlady, respondent No,2, the original tenant, sublet the premises to a separate entity, which carried out illegal construction therein for which the landlady was served with notice by KBCA. That concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner by both the courts below were not amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution; He relied upon the case laws reported in 2012 SCMR 254, PLD 1974 SC 351, PLD 1982 SC 79 and 1968 SCMR 734.
5. I have considered the contentions of the parties and perused the material, and have taken guidance from the decisions cited at the bar. Admittedly they are concurrent findings of the courts below against the petitioner. The scope of interference by the High Court in the circumstances is confined only to inquire into a question, that whether or not the courts below while trying the case have acted in accordance with law. And to determine such question, the case of no evidence, bad faith, misdirection, or failure to follow judicial procedure by the Court/Tribunal etc. Are treated as acts done without lawful authority, and when the High Court considers that the case is of no evidence or is hit by any of the aforementioned conditions, the certiorari will be granted. But if such is not the case, the High Court will stay its hands and will not substitute its findings for that of recorded by the courts below. For reliance, the case of Rahim Shah v. The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and another (PLD 1973 SC 24) can be cited. In the present case learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to show that his case met with any of the above conditions to warrant interference by this court. Record reveals that both the courts below have considered the evidence adduced by the parties minutely and have concluded that the grounds of subletting the premises by respondent No,2 to the petitioner without permission of the landlady and then petitioner's making unauthorized addition and alteration therein are established.
6. To arrive at such conclusion the courts have found that letting out the premises initially to respondent No,2 by the landlady is not disputed. (The learned counsel for the petitioner in his written synopsis filed here has also mentioned so.) The courts below have referred to the evidence of attorney of the petitioner (who is its Managing Partner), which shows that he has claimed that the petitioner is the real tenant that was established more than 30 years back by the real son of the landlady. However, there is no such evidence to establish that the petitioner (Messrs Garden Autos) was established in the premises such long time ago by son of the landlady. Record reveals that petitioner's attorney has asserted in evidence that in the year 1983 Ghazanfar Hidayatullah sold shares to him and his family members as a result of which a new partnership agreement was executed. This statement appears to be in complete consonance with the case of the Landlady that petitioner was sublet the premises around that time, and is also indicative of the fact that the petitioner with its current directors having distinct obligations and rights came into being only in the year 1983. His evidence further shows that neither intimation of creation of such partnership was given to the landlady nor written permission from her to occupy the premises or run the business was obtained by the petitioner's attorney. Much emphasis has been laid by petitioner's counsel on the point that the petitioner's attorney has produced in his evidence receipts showing payment of rent by M/s Garden Autos to the landlady from May 1977 to December 1982, which is a sufficient proof to discard any notion of subletting the premises without consent of the landlady. In this regard, it may be observed that the attorney of the landlady in his evidence has also produced counter foils of rent receipt book showing payment of rent up-to December 1982 made by respondent No,2 (Messrs Consolidated Commercial Co. Ltd). Now keeping in view the fact that the petitioner came into being only in 1983 through a partnership agreement, the documents produced by its attorney, which purportedly pertain to the years before the petitioner came into .Existence, can hardly be assumed as a proof of payment of the rent made by the petitioner.
Although it has been deposed by the attorney of petitioner that son namely Anwar Hidayatullah had founded of M/s. Garden Autos in the said premises and after him his son Ghazanfar Hidayatullah became its Managing Partner who had sold his shares to him and his other family members in the year 1983 ushering into their possession of the premises as Messrs Garden Autos; therefore there was no question of subletting the premises. But the partnership agreement produced at exhibit C executed in 1983 does not support such fact, nowhere Ghazanfar Hidayatullah is shown having any relation or role in the business or in execution of the said agreement. So it is clear that petitioner's attorney has not been able to establish sale of shares of Messrs Garden Autos to him by Ghazanfar Hidayatullah to presume the petitioner's possession of the premises a continuity' of some earlier process rather than a new one separated by an act of subletting. And it may be noted that the petitioner cannot succeed by simply claiming, that since already M/s Garden Autos was present in the premises and they only stepped into its shoes as partners, therefore no change of lease rights took place. For, from petitioner's attorney own evidence it is obvious that in the year 1983 original tenant ceased to be in possession of the premises as a result of partnership agreement and they took over the business. This clearly indicates that original tenant had parted with the possession of the premises in favour of new partners having distinct liability and rights; and it was admittedly done unilaterally without consent of the landlady.
7. Petitioner's attorney has admitted making alterations in the premises in his deposition, however, his stance is that only roof of the shop, a portion of the premises, which had become shabby was reconstructed to save human life and machinery, and it was done only after informing the landlady. But nothing on record suggests so and on the contrary from his evidence it is evident that it was done illegally without any written permission from the landlady, which fact is further fortified from the notice served upon the landlady by KBCA for raising unauthorized construction on the premises. The said notice reveals that some RCC structure was raised thereon without seeking permission and it was not merely an old roof made of tin-sheet that was replaced by the new tin- sheet as claimed by the petitioner.
8. From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that the petitioner came into being only in the year 1983, and in the said year was handed over possession of the premises by respondent No,2, and it was done unilaterally without consent of the landlady. That no permission before embarking upon construction work of the premises was obtained from the landlady either and that the construction was unauthorized and illegal. These factual aspects of the case have been exhaustively dealt with by the two courts below, and there is nothing on record to show that there is any misreading or non-reading of the evidence to warrant interference by this court.
9. Resultantly, the petition is held meritless and is dismissed accordingly.