1. ' The appellant has called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (East) dated 29-5-1989, decreeing the respondent's suit against the applicant.
2. ' The respondent filed a suit for declaration and possession against the applicant alleging that she was a tenant in respect of a room situated in Shri Punch Mukhi Hanumanji Mandir, Karachi, but the same was unlawfully in occupation of the applicant. According to the respondent, one Doctor Ali Muhammad Nagori, was the original tenant of the said premises and after his demise on 15-8- 1985, the respondent became its tenant being widow of the said Doctor Ali Muhammad Nagori. The applicant was a diver serving with Doctor Nagori and he was, therefore, allowed the use of the premises on account of his services with Doctor Ali Muhammad Nagori. However, the services of the applicant were terminated in June, 1984, but, thereafter, the applicant continued to be in service with the son of the respondent from July, 1984 to September, 1985. The services of the applicant were being used for family car as a driver and the applicant was permitted to stay in the said premises. However, after termination of his services in September, 1985, the applicant declined to vacate the premises and, therefore, the said suit was filed by the respondent against the applicant.
3. ' Mr. Amir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, while challenging the decree passed by the learned Civil Court in favour of the respondent has placed reliance upon the case of The Hasani Academy Society v. Ali Muhammad (PLD 1957 (W.P.) Kar. 218), wherein it was held that no hard and fast rule could be laid down as to the test to find out whether the relationship between a landlord and a person occupying the premises in lieu of rendering services was that of a landlord or tenant or was merely that of a licensee. It was further held that if the person concerned occupies the premises in the course of his employment and the same is subservient and necessary for his service, then it is the enjoyment of the property as a servant and his position is that of a licensee, but if he is permitted to occupy the premises by way of remuneration for his services and he is not required to reside on the premises primarily for the performance of his duties, then the occupation is that of a tenant.
4. ' If this test is applied to the facts of the present case then the applicant has no legs to stand upon.
5. It was clearly the case of the respondent that the applicant was permitted the use of the premises on account of and in consideration of his services as a driver and, therefore, there was no question vis-a-vis his position that the same was other than that of a licensee. The above position was not challenged by the applicant in any, manner before the learned trial Court. Consequently, after termination of his service his licence to occupy the premises in question also came to an end.
6. Consequently, I find no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court in this regard.
7. ' The next argument of Mr. Amir Ahmad Khan, that jurisdiction vested in the Rent Controller to eject the applicant from 'the premises also has no force because the applicant was not the tenant of either the respondent or her late husband, Doctor Ali Muhammad Nagori. Admittedly, he was permitted only to occupy the premises as a driver. Consequently, his position being that of a licensee, the provisions of the Rent Ordinance were not attracted at all in the case.
8. ' It was for such reasons that this revision was dismissed today by a short order. The parties are left to bear their own costs.