' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against. The judgment of the High Court dated 11-5-1989 setting aside the order of the ejectment passed on an application filed by him.
2. The facts which emerged from the adjudication are that the Petitioner was himself a tenant of a plot of land which he had let out to the respondent in 1976. Under the terms of his own tenancy, he was precluded from letting it out. The sub-tenant on coming to know of the fact that the Petitioner was not entitled to sublet the property to him, attorned to the owner/landlord and started paying rent to him. When the Petitioner instituted an application seeking his eviction on the ground that there had been a default in the payment of rent and other violations of tenancy rights, the respondent denied the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. A number of issues were framed which it is not necessary to reproduce. The Controller decided the issues in favour of the Petitioners and ordered the eviction. When the matter was brought to the High Court it was found that the petitioner did not satisfy the definition of 'landlord' and the respondent did not satisfy the definition of 'tenant' as given in the Rent Restriction Ordinance. On that ground the order of ejectment was set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner in challenging the decision of the High Court has mainly relied on section 116 of the Evidence Act in order to contend that the respondent having been admittedly inducted into property by the Petitioner, the relationship of landlord and tenant got established and he could not deny the title and interest of the Petitioner without surrendering the possession of the property.
4. The general principle of section 116 of the Evidence Act has been correctly noted and advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. However, we have a case which was instituted under a Special Law and before a persona designata. The statute has made a special provision. The definition of the words `landlord' and 'tenant' in the Rent Restriction Ordinance is so worded as to exclude the Petitioner from the category of landlord notwithstanding the fact that he may be so for the purposes of section 116 of the Evidence Act. The definition of the 'landlord' includes in the Ordinance, a tenant "who sublets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised".
The Petitioner falling in the category of 'tenant' of the owner could be treated as a 'landlord' for the purposes of the Ordinance, only if he was authorised under the provisions of the Ordinance to sublet the property. He was not. He, therefore, goes out of the category. Similarly, the tenant has been defined so as not to include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant unless with the consent in writing of the landlord". As the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established under the Ordinance, the claim had to be dismissed as incompetent.
' The Petition is without merit and leave to appeal is refused.