1. ' This appeal has been directed against an order dated 1-12-1994 passed by 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi-West, disposing of an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Finding no merits in the same and dismissing it and awarding compensatory costs of Rs,10,000 to the decree holder/landlord for the agony faced by him.
2. ' The relevant facts for the passing of this order are to the effect that Sindh Social Security Institution (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord') had rented out the premises described as "Property No,499-A, Old Golimar, Mangopir Road, Karachi" by an agreement dated 2-4-1986 to M/s. Azmat Group of Companies having its head office at 1-C, State Life Square, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi-2 through its Chairman and Managing Director Mr. Muhammad Hafeez Azmat (hereinafter referred to as the `tenant`). The monthly rent was settled to be Rs,15,000. The terms, for which this agreement was executed, was 3 years.
3. ' On 4-11-1989, the landlord filed an application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (being Rent Case No,272/89) in the Court of 1st Rent Controller Karachi-West against the tenant. The ground urged was that the tenant had failed to pay the rent for different periods during the tenancy from 1986 to 1989. In addition to the ground of default, the landlord claimed that the tenant had impaired the material value and utility of the premises and he had raised construction without the written permission of the landlord and had thereby caused damage to the premises. Details of the illegal construction were also given in the rent application.
4. The tenant contested the rent proceedings denying the default and pleading that receipts had not been issued to him for the payment of the rent, which he had already paid. He denied having impaired the utility of the premises by alteration and additions made by him and on the contrary claimed that he had enhanced the utility of the premises and had increased its value. The Rent Controller in the proceedings, after determining the following points in favour of the landlord, ordered the ejectment of the tenant:-- "(1) Whether the opponent committed wilful default in payment of rent from August, 1986 to January, 1987 and from December, 1988 to October, 1989.
(2) Whether alterations and additions were made by the opponent without the consent of the applicant and that opponent impaired the value and utility of the building."
5. ' The Rent Controller had passed the order after detailed discussion on the evidence before him and had given 60 days time to the tenant to vacate the premises. The tenant filed an appeal under section 21 of the Ordinance in the High Court being F.RA. No,80/92, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on the request of the learned counsel for the tenant, on 14-12-1992. Thereafter, it appears that the tenant was advised to move an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside the order of ejectment in the Court of the Rent Controller when the execution proceedings were started and notice was served on the tenant. The application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was moved by:-- "M/s. Azmat Trading Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, having its office at Fatima Jinnah Road, Stalt Lines, Karachi."
6. ' The contention in the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was that in fact M/s. Azmat Group of Companies was not the tenant but it was M/s. Azmat Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd., which was the tenant and that, therefore, the proceedings before the Rent Controller should be annulled and the ejectment may be set aside. It was claimed that the possession of the premises was with M/s. Azmat Trading Company Ltd., and that M/s. Azmat Group of Companies was not a legal person and that Mr. Hafeez Azmat of Azmat Group of Companies was not authorised by M/s. Azmat Trading Company to defend the ejectment proceedings. It was also claimed in the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. That there was no default in payment of rent as a sum of Rs,6 lacs with the consent of the landlord was spent by the tenant on the premises and that the same was adjustable towards future rent. Further, it was contended in the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. That the premises had been improved by the repairs carried out by the tenant and that its market value was increased and that its value was not impaired. Further, plea was that agreement of tenancy being for a period beyond 11 months, the agreement was to be registered under the Registration Act compulsorily, and that since the same was a non-registered document, the Court should have not considered the same as an agreement of tenancy. This application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was contested by the landlord. The contention of the landlord was that Mr. Muhammad Hafeez Azmat, who had signed the agreement on behalf of M/s. Azmat Group of Companies, was the proper person, who had contested the ejectment proceedings, before the Rent Controller, and that M/s. Azmat Group of Companies was the tenant. It was further contended that the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is a mala fide attempt on the part of the tenant to violate the orders of the Rent Controller and pressurise the decree-holder to enter into some settlement in respect of the arrears of the rent, which is a huge amount. In fact, according to the landlord, the tenant was playing fraud, misrepresentation and making misstatements and that therefore, application under section 12(2), C.P.C. In this matter was not competent. The landlord further pleaded before the Rent Controller in defence to the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. That M/s. Azmat Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd. Had never entered into any agreement of tenancy with the landlord nor the landlord ever recognized them to be the tenant. The allegation that a sum of Rs,6 lacs was spent by M/s. Azmat Trading Company with the permission of the landlord was denied and it was pleaded that even if the agreement of tenancy was not registered, it could be used for collateral purposes. The Rent Controller while deciding the application under section 12(2) came to the conclusion that in fact the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was a frivolous attempt by the tenant to prolong his possession and that there was no merit in the same. Against this order of the Rent Controller, the present appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance has been filed. Respondent No,1 the landlord was issued a pre-admission notice. Learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent have been heard at length. Learned counsel for the appellant has, mainly argued the points, which have been raised in the memo. Of appeal. The counsel for the respondent has argued that in fact the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Has also been moved by the tenant. M/s. Azmat Group of Companies, consists of many companies, and M/s. Azmat Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd., is one of such companies, therefore, the same tenant has malafidely filed this application under section 12(2), C.P.C. After failing in the ejectment proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord also contended that the tenant having filed an appeal before the High Court, withdrew the same as in fact he had failed to deposit the huge arrears of rent running in lacs of rupees and did not want to deposit the rent in Court.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that M/s. Azmat Group of Companies is not a juristic person and, therefore could not be a tenant. I do not find force in this argument as, for becoming a tenant of some immovable property, any person or group of persons can acquire the property as tenant.
8. The agreement of tenancy, which is of utmost importance in this case, shows that Azmat Group of Companies had acquired the premises in dispute as a tenant, through Mr. Muhammad Hafeez Azmat. It is not necessary that tenant must be an 'individual or a registered company'. Even a group of companies can become tenant in any premises and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to pursuade me to believe that a group of companies could not be a tenant. No provision in the Ordinance creates bar in favour of the group of companies to become tenant of any premises. The definition of 'tenant' given in the Ordinance in section 2 (j) is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:-- "2(j) 'tenant' means any person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of any premises by him or by any other person on his behalf and includes-- any person who continues to be in possession or occupation of the premises after the termination of his tenancy; heirs of the tenant in possession or occupation of the premises after the death of the tenant."
9. ' The word "person" used in the above provisions has not been defined separately and, therefore, it will have the same meaning as this word stands for in general usage. The group of companies represented by Mr. Hafeez Azmat, entered into agreement of tenancy with the landlord, are definitely a "person" within the meaning of section 2(j) of S.R.P.O. This contention on the part of the appellant, does not render the ejectment order passed by the Rent ' Controller to be fraudulent or the result of misrepresentation and therefore, provisions of section 12(2) are not attracted. It was also contended 11) by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass the order and, therefore, the provisions of section 12(2) were attracted and that the order being without jurisdiction, could be challenged. No doubt section 12(2), C.P.C. Is attracted in cases where want of jurisdiction is pleaded but the appellant in this case has not been able to show as to how the order of ejectment was bad for want of jurisdiction. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted that M/s. Azmat Group of Companies is a group of companies, therefore, it was not the real tenant, and that M/s. Azmat Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd. Was the real tenant, still it cannot be said that the Rent Controller lacks the jurisdiction to decide this case. At the best, it could be said that the landlord had played some fraud on the real tenant but the learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the ejectment order on the ground of fraud. Not only this, he is unable to give the details of the fraud on the part of the landlord. It appears logically that the appellant is unable to do so, because the original agreement of tenancy has neither been denied nor any fault is found with it except that some technical objection has been found i,e, it is unregistered and that "group of companies" has been averred to be not a "juristic person". The respondent/landlord has placed on record certain documents, which are neither denied nor controverted by the appellant. These documents go a long way to show that the appellant has not come to the Court with clean hands. These document clearly show that Azmat Trading Company Ltd. Is one of the company of the Group i,e, Azmat Group of Companies. Another company is Azmat Textile Mills Ltd., of the same group. The rent of the premises was being paid by cheques, issued by M/s. Azmat Textile Mills Ltd. M/s. Azmat Group of Companies also wanted to purchase the premises in dispute from the landlord and they wrote such letter to the landlord on 12th February, 1992. The next argument of the learned counsel of the appellant that since the agreement of tenancy required registration, its non-registration rendered it unfit of any consideration by the Rent Controller, has also no force. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not taken away by the lack of registration of the agreement of tenancy as oral tenancy is also recognized in law. The relationship of landlord and tenant is governed by the provisions of the Ordinance and not by registration or non-registration of the agreement of tenancy. When the relationship of landlord c and tenant is in existence, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is very much there. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the ejectment passed in this case suffers for the lack of jurisdiction. The most important aspect of the case to me is that when M/s. Azmat Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd. Claimed to be the tenant of the premises in dispute, there must be some prima facie evidence with them to prove that they are the tenants. The appellants have not come forward with any specific and express plea as to how and when tenancy was created in their favour. There is neither an agreement of tenancy in favour of the appellants nor any other evidence to show that M/s. Azmat Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd., had obtained the possession of the premises in dispute on rent from the landlord. There is absolutely no proof of payment of the rent by them, therefore, the only logical conclusion appears to be that the real tenant i,e, M/s. Azmat Group of Companies having been unsuccessful in the rent proceedings and having not been able to deposit rent before the High Court in the First Rent Appeal No,80/92 and after withdrawing the same, have come out with a new plea that M/s. Azmat Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd., is the real tenant. This appears to be a lame excuse on the part of the appellants in order to prolong their possession. While the learned counsel for the landlord was arguing, he made a statement that in fact the execution proceedings were carried out against the real tenants i,e, M/s. Azmat Group of Companies and the possession was also taken over from the Azmat Group of Companies. This factual position was also not controverted by the learned counsel for the appellants. Except that he stated that the premises are lying locked and the keys are available with the Rent Controller in execution proceedings. Therefore, I am clear in my mind that the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was a frivolous attempt by the same tenant, who had not been successful in defending the ejectment proceedings and, therefore, this F.RA. Is also a mala fide attempt to prolong the possession. There is absolutely no merit in this appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed in limine.
3. Consequently, C.M.A. No,1394/95 is also dismissed.