ABDUL MAJID KHANZADA, J.- This appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is filed by the tenant/appellant against the order of the Vth Rent Controller, South Karachi, dated 18-7-1990 in Rent Case No. 915 of 1988, whereby he granted the eviction application of the respondent on the sole ground of subletting.
2. The rent application was instituted by the respondent through its Secretary on the sole ground of sub-letting the premises in dispute to M/s. Puma . Industries (Pvt.) Limited. The applicant filed objections to the ejectment application for self and on behalf of the alleged sub-lettee,- in which he asserted that he has never parted with the possession of the rented premises and the same is still in die use of the tenant namely M/s. Adil Brothers (Pvt.) Limited.
3. In support of his case the landlord/respondent, who is a- corporation/body constituted under Ordinance XX of 1979 having its office in PNSC Building, Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan Road, Karachi, filed affidavit-in- evidence of one Manzoor Ali Samitio, Assistant Manager (Estate), PNSC, Karachi alongwith photostat copies of some letters of Puma Industries (Pvt.) Limited and the notices.
Exchanged between respondent's advocate and the tenant i.e. Adil Brothers-(Pvt.) Limited. While the tenant/appellant in support of hi case, filed the affidavit-in-evidence of one Syed Abdul Hameed the General Manager of M/s. Adil Brothers (Pvt.) Limited, alongwith photostat copies of his Income Tax Assessm ent Orders, Notice exchanged between the parties and the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Puma Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Both these witnesses were cross- examined by the opposite party.
4. Mr. Yawar Farooqui, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the witness examined by the landlord was neither a attorney nor possessed any lawful authority to appear and depose on behalf of the landlord in the ejectment proceedings as such his evidence merits no consideration.
He further contended that the Directors of M/s. Adil Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd. And that of Puma Industries (Pvt.) Limited, are one and the same. Except the showing of address of the registered office of it in the rented premises, the said concern has no concern with the premises. Its office is in its factory premises in Korangi and admittedly there is even no board of it on the rented premises and nor its office is there nor its staff sit there nor there is any sort of dealing of it in the said premises. He also contended that M/s. Adil Brothers (Pvt.) Limited is in visible and physical possession of the demised premises and he never parted with any portion of it. The allegations of subletting are false, baseless and merits no consideration in the eyes of law. In support of his contentions he relied upon 1990 M.L.D: 1715, 1985 C.L.C. 2419, 1991 C.L.C. 957, 1992 C.L.C. 482, 1993 S.C.M.R. 1163, 1989 M.L.D. 557, 1989 C.L.C. 1128 and P.L.D. 1968 Karachi 635.
5. Mr. Rehmat Elahi, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appellant has sublet the premises in violation of the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant. He referred the letters of M/s. Puma Industries in which the registered office address of it is shown in the rented premises and so also in the Memorandum and the Articles of Association of it, which is sufficient to prove that the rented premises are sublet to it by the tenant M/s. Adil Brothers. He also contended that both the firms may have same Directors but both have independent entities in the eyes of law. In support of his arguments he relied upon the case law reported in 1986 C.L.C. 953,' P.L.D. 1988 Karachi 240, 1985 M.L.D. 116, P.L.D. 1982 S.C. 79, 1991 C.L.C. 1042 and P.L.D. 1979 S.C. 185.
6. I have considered the valuable arguments of the learned counsel of the parties and have also gone through the case law cited by them and have applied my mind to the circumstances of the case.
7. The case of the landlord is that the tenant has sublet the premises in question to third party in violation of the tenancy agreement, but it is strange to note that none of the parties has filed the copy of the tenancy agreement, which could only show as to what were the terms of tenancy between the parties but since it is not filed, it is not possible for the Court to reach to a just and proper determination of the violation of any of the terms of the tenancy. The burden to prove was on the landlord who has failed to substantiate his allegations. In the ejectment proceedings both the parties have failed to examine themselves in support of their case but instead they examined unauthorised persons who neither possess any lawful authority nor any power-of-attorney as such their evidence cannot be equated with that of the parties concerned but they are simply witnesses, who have no concern with the rented premises. Under Section 19(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the Rent Controller is required to receive evidence first of the applicant and his witnesses and then of the respondent and his Witnesses, but in this case neither the applicant has examined himself nor the respondent. Both have examined their employees, who did not possess any lawful authority from their employers who are Registered Bodies, as such I am of the considered opinion that there is no lawful evidence in support of the case of the parties, except their pleadings which cannot take place of evidence.
8. In view of the above position, I am of the opinion that the learned Rent Controller was not justified to pass the ejectment order in the case, for want of lawful evidence and the proof of the subletting, as such I have no option but to set aside the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller in the case and allow the appeal, with no order as to costs.