1. ' Mst. Saeeda Begum, the appellant herein, is the landlady of a commercial premises, shop, situated in a building constructed on a plot of land bearing No,Z-63 situated in Bihar Muslim Housing Society, Manzar Alam Road, Karachi. This shop was let out to respondent Shamim Ahmed on payment of rent at the rate of Rs,325 per month. On 4th November, 1986 she filed an application under section 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the Court of IIIrd Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (East) for ejectment of her tenant from the shop in question only on the ground that he had in the month of October, 1986 handed over its possession to some other person without her written consent. The Respondent filed his written statement generally denying the averments made by the appellant in her application and stated that he was doing business in the said premises and for the purpose of its smooth running he had taken a partner in the business only. The appellant on her behalf examined her husband, Sultan Ahmed, who had her general power of attorney. He stated in his affidavit of evidence that in the first week of October, 1986 respondent had handed over possession of the premises in question to one Ali Bhai son of Qasim Ali, who was doing business of refrigeration. He also produced certain photographs of the shop premises showing that the business was being run under the name and style of "Thermo Cool." Certain photographs were also produced to show that the car belonging to transferee Ali Bhai was also parked therein. She also examined the photograhpher, who had taken the photographs of the shop. Respondent Shamin Ahmed examined himself and stated that he did not part with the possession of the rented premises in question but had started a business of repairing and maintenance of refrigcraters and deep freezers in partnership with one Ali Muhammad son of Qasim Ali under the terms and conditions set out in their partnership deed executed on 1st July, 1986. He claimed that Ali Muhammad was merely his business partner and under clause 9 of the Partnership Deed (registered) it was specifically stated that tenancy rights in the shop premises shall always vest in him. He produced Partnership Deed and certificate of its registration. Besides him he has examined Ali Muhammad his partner, who clarified that he was merely a working partner carrying on the business of Respondent to the extent of looking after technical aspect of the partnership business only. He stated that exclusive possession of the shop premises was never handed over to him and he had no interest in the tenancy.
2. ' The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence produced by the parties concluded that Respondent had not handed over the possession of the rented premises to someone else to render him liable for ejectment and dismissed the application on. 3rd February, 1988. It is against the judgment of the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (East) passed in Rent Case No,873 of 1986 that the present appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been filed.
3. ' Mr. Habibur Rehman, Advocate for the appellant, contended that according to the original agreement of tenancy in respect of the rented premises executed on 10th February, 1975 the shop was let out to the respondent for the purpose of carrying on business of cold drinks in the premises.
4. The respondent has admitted that he has entered into a partnership with one Ali Muhammad, who is carrying on business under the name and style of "Thermo Cool" and the premises arc being used for the purpose of such partnership. According to him this amounts to assignment of the tenancy in favour of the firm and it being without the consent of the appellant will render respondent liable for ejectment. He referred to the cases reported in PLD 1974 SC 351, PLD 1982 SC 79, 1991 CLC 1042, 1988 M LD 1418, 1989 M LD 2972, 1988 MLD 2628, 1982 CLC 1042 and 1981 CLC 669.
5. ' Mr. Rehmat Elahi, Advocate for the Respondent, contended that the Partnership Deed produced by the respondent in unequivocal terms indicates that Respondent had at no time parted with the possession of the rented premises but was merely carrying on his business with the assistance of one Ali Bhai, who according to the Partnership Deed (registered) has no right or interest over the tenancy in the disputed premises. According to him permitting a working partner to carry on the business of partnership firm will not amount to parting of possession in terms of section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to render a tenant liable for ejectment. He referred to the cases reported in PLD 1968 Kar. 635, 1990 CLC 1064, 1991 CLC 385.
6. ' The arguments now advanced by Mr. Habibur Rehman, Advocate for the appellant, do not find support from the averments made in the application filed by the appellant before the Rent Controller for ejectment for her tenant. She has merely stated in para. 2 of her application that the Respondent in or about first week of October 1986 handed over possession of the premises in question to some other person without her written consent. An improvement was effected in her case through the affidavit-in-evidence filed by her husband and attorney on her behalf. Name of one Ali Bhai son of Qasim Ali has been introduced in para. 3 of the affidavit and some particulars of the trade name mentioned therein. Even the original tenancy agreement entered between the parties enunciating terms and conditions of tenancy and the nature of business to be carried on by the tenant was never produced or proved in the case. For the first time Mr. Habibur Rehman, Advocate for the appellant, submitted a photostat copy of such agreement during the course of his arguments to show that the shop was let out to the respondent for the purpose of cold drink shop. In absence of such evidence brought in the case no reliance can be based on such a copy at this stage. The application did not give particulars of the person to whom the Respondent had handed over the possession of the shop and the business carried on by the transferee. There is merely oral evidence given by the husband and attorney of the appellant. As against such slip short evidence produced by the appellant, the respondent (tenant) has clarified that he had introduced one Ali Muhammad son of Qasim Ali as a partner in his partnership business under a registered Partnership Deed executed on 1st July, 1986 where the rights of his partner were restricted under the Partnership Deed only to the carrying on of the business and it has been clarified in the Partnership Deed itself that he will have no right or interest in the tenancy or the goodwill of the partnership firm. It, therefore, clearly establishes that Ali Muhammad is merely his working partner and the possession of the shop has not been transferred to him exclusively to render the respondent liable for ejectment from the premises under section 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The documentary evidence produced by the tenant clearly indicates that the partner introduced in the firm can have no interest in the premises. Besides no evidence has been led by the appellant in the case to establish that the tenant has passed on the possession of the rented premises to some one who can be considered to be co-tenant. Under the circumstances mentioned above the appellant has not been able to establish his case for ejectment of her tenant. Similar view has been taken in the judgment passed in the case of Mst.
7. Umme Laila v. Moiz Hussain published in 1991 CLC 385.
8. ' For the foregoing reasons I find no force in this appeal which is dismissed.