1. ' The appellant No,1 is the tenant in respect of shop No,4 situated at K. Hadi Market Block No,4, Nazimabad, Karachi on a monthly rent of Rs,27.50. The respondent landlady brought an application for ejectment of the appellants on the ground that appellant No,1 without her consent has sublet and has transferred the tenancy right in favour of the appellant No,2. The application was contested and joint written statement was filed by the appellant denying the allegation made in the application. It is stated that factually appellant No,2 is the family members of the appellant No,l.
2. The appellant No,1 is carrying his legitimate business in the demised premises personally. The following issue was framed by the Rent Controller:- "Whether the appellant No,1 has sublet the premises to the appellant No,2 without permission of the applicant?"
3. ' Muhammad Younus Rent Collector of the respondent has deposed that the appellant No,1 without consent of the applicant sublet the premises and transferred his rights in favour of the appellant No,2. The two appellants in their affidavits have denied the allegation of sub-tenancy. According to the appellant No,2, his parents died in his childhood and he is adopted son of Mahboob Alam and a member of his family. The application for ejectment has been filed as she wants the shop to be vacated in order to enable her to earn huge Pugree and enhanced rent. She was also displeased with him, as he got the fair rent of the shop fixed. The appellant No,2 has also stated the same facts in his affidavit as deposed by the appellant No,1.
4. ' The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the subletting has been proved and, therefore, he made an order of eviction.
5. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Muhammad Younus who appeared as a witness on behalf of the respondent was an unauthorized person and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on his evidence. He has referred to the letter of authority given by the landlady in favour of witness. He has referred to Order II, rule 3, C.P.C. And submitted that no power-of-attorney was executed in favour of said Muhammad Younus, he therefore, could not appear on her behalf. If his statement is kept out of consideration there is no evidence to support the contention raised by the respondent in her application.
6. I see no force in this contention. Muhammad Younus has appeared as a witness and he has deposed that he is rent collector and used to collect the rent. As he used to collect the rent on behalf of the landlady he becomes landlord for all purposes entitling him to file an application for eviction of the respondent. According to the definition, "landlord" means a person entitled to receive rent. This objection has no force. It is the case of the appellants that appellant No,2 is adopted son of the appellant No,1. The appellant No,1 being old and infirm he cannot look after the business himself and the appellant No,2 is carrying on the business on his behalf. The appellant No,2 is doing the business along with appellant No,1 since 1956. Muhammad Younus the witness of the landlady, on the other hand has deposed that appellant No,1 has sublet the premises to appellant No,2. It is stated that sealed envelope was sent to the appellant No,1 but there is endorsement that the appellant No,1 had left the shop. No reliance can be placed on the production of envelope as postman has not been produced to prove B that he took the envelope on the address given but addressee was not available. No presumption either under the evidence act or under the General Clauses Act arises in the case. There is no evidence that the letter was dispatched and it was taken to place given in the address. There is evidence on record to establish that the premises has been sublet by the appellant No,1 to appellant No,2. In the written statement appellant No,1 has stated that he is as usual carrying on his business C in the demised premises personally, but in his cross-examination he ' has, stated that he is not occupying the shop personally. According to him the shop is being run by the appellant No,2 as he is one of the family members, It is admitted by appellant No,1 that Noor Mian does not maintain any account of the shop. He does not share profits of shop with Noor Mian as he is his adopted son and lives and dines with him as a son. He further states that he does not ask from him about what he keeps with him.
7. He pays money to his mother i.e, the wife of the witness but the appellant No,2 has denied that he makes payment to the wife of the appellant No,1. He has further stated that he does not enquire from appellant No,2 about the loss or the profits of the shop. He himself did not keep the account of the shop and, therefore, he would not know what profit was made. Noor Mian in his deposition has stated that he himself sell the goods. Since last one and half year the opponent No,1 is sick and is not sitting at the shop. He does not maintain any account. He himself purchase the goods for the shop from what he earns. He does not pay anything to Mahboob Alam from the profit of the shop.
8. He pays the rent. He has also stated that he gives the rent to the appellant No,1 who deposits it in Coues. He works on the shop alone. He gives money to the opponent No,1 for payment of rent from profits. Since last one and half year he did not pay any rent to the applicant himself. All these facts show that shop is being run by appellant No,2. It is also unbelievable that the appellant No,2 is doing the business along with appellant No,1 since 1956 as the rent was never paid to the landlady by appellant No,2 during this long period. The appellant No,1 Mahboob Alam in his statement has stated that there are 7 rooms in the house whereas Noor Mien has deposed that Mahboob Alam had one quarter of two rooms previously and he is residing in a quarter belonging to brother-in- law of Mahboob Alam. The statement of the opponent's witness Mirza Mustafa Baig was rightly excluded from consideration as he is also tenant of the landlady. He admits that criminal and civil cases against him are pending. Even he has admitted that at present the appellant No,2 sits regularly on the E shop. It is even not suggested to the rent collector that he had seen appellant No,2 working along with appellant No,1 since 1956. There is no independent evidence to prove this fact. In view of the facts stated above there is no escape from conclusion that this issue has been established.
9. ' The learned counsel for the parties have cited certain precedents in support of their respective contentions but in view of the established facts the reference to the authorities are not necessary because no law point is involved in the matter and the case is naturally to be processed on the evidence on record.
10. ' In the result the appeal stands dismissed. Four months' time is granted to the appellants for handing over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent. No order as to costs.