1. ' This is an appeal under section 21(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called Rent Ordinance) against an order dated 14-11-1990 passed by the Vth Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi-South, in the Rent Case No,799 of 1988 (Mst. Hajyani Hawa v. Messrs National Processing Company) whereby an application filed under section 15 of the Ordinance by the respondent/landlady was allowed on the ground that the appellant/tenant has handed over the possession of the premises to some other person without the written consent of the respondent/landlady.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlady filed eviction application under section 15 of the Rent Ordinance against the appellant/tenant in respect of Shop No,119/1 ground floor constructed on Plot No,BR-5/22/I119 Mulji Street Kharadar Karachi known as Zohra Manzil on the ground that appellant/tenant has sublet/parted with the possession of the said premises and has given to M/s. Soni Services Net Work. The appellant filed written statement and denied the contents of the ejectment application.
3. ' On the pleadings of parties learned Rent Controller settled to only issue "whether the opponent has sublet the premises in question to M/s. Soni Enterprises". The respondent/landlady filed affidavit-in-evidence of Yousuf her Attorney and Rent Collector who has produced photo-copy of special power of attorney (Annexure 'A'), copy of page 3 of daily Dawn dated 25th March, 1988 (Annexure 'B'), photo stat copy of page 818 of K.T.R. Directory of 1987 (Annexure 'C'), copy of page 11 of daily Dawn dated 12-12-1988 (Annexure 'D'), copy of notice dated 16-4-1988 (Annexure 'E'), copy of reply dated 26-41988 of the notice (Annexure 'F') and photo state copy of Form A of annual return of Soni Services Pakistan (Annexure 'G') appellant/tenant filed affidavits in evidence of Jawaid Ahmad, Abdul Majeed Khan and Rehmatullah Dawood Attorney of appellant's partner Mr. Zakria Ghani who has produced photocopy of general power-of-attorney (Annexure 'A').
4. ' I have heard Mr. Makhdoom Saifuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Suleman Kassam, learned counsel for the respondent, perused the record and proceedings of the case and the case-law cited.
5. ' Mr. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the respondent/landlady in para. 2 of the ejectment application has stated that she came to know that the appellant has sublet/parted with the possession of the rented premises and has given to M/s. Soni Services Network and none has been examined to state that actually the appellant/tenant has parted with possession of the premises shop and handed over the same to M/s. Soni Services Net Work who has also not been joined as party to the proceedings. He has further argued that only M/s. Soni Services Network was allowed to use the telephone of the appellant/tenant and thereby the respondent/landlady has failed to prove the passing of possession in respect of the shop premises from the appellant/tenant in favour of M/s. Soni Services. Network and further that the said Soni Services was the sister concern of the appellants.
6. ' Mr. Suleman Kassam, learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that when the respondent came to know about passing of possession in respect of shop premises by the appellant in favour of M/s. Soni Services, a notice (Annexure 'E') dated 16th April, 1988 was sent to M/s. Soni Services on the given address which was replied by learned counsel Mr. Makhdoom Saifuddin Siddiqui on 26th April, 1988 which proved that M/s. Soni Services were housed in the shop premises thereby possession of the shop stood proved to have been passed on in their favour. He has further argued that appellant's witness Rehmatullah in the cross-examination admitted that premises in shop was in use of Soni Services. Witnesses Jawaid and Abdul Majeed of the respondent have in the cross- examination admitted that the premises was in the use of M/s. Soni Services. Mr. Suleman has also contended that no suggestion by the appellant was made in the cross-examination of the respondent that M/s. Soni Services was sister concern of the appellants/tenants or that there was only one owner in respect of two firms therefore, the said plea cannot be agitated before this Court.
7. He has placed reliance upon 1988 SCMR 689; 1993 MLD 1807; 1989 MLD 2972; PLD 1988 Karachi 164, 1984 MLD 557; 1982 SCMR 79; 1986 CLC 953 and 1986 MLD 401 in support of his contention.
8. ' The only point for the consideration in the circumstances of the present case in this appeal is that whether the said M/s. Soni Services even if owned by the appellants and put into possession of the shop premises by the latter would amount to handing over of possession of the shop premises to another person viz. M/s. Soni Services.
9. ' The respondent in the ejectment application has stated that she came to know that appellants/tenants have sublet/parted with the possession of the shop premises and has given possession to M/s. Soni Services Network. Yousuf attorney of the respondent in his affidavit-in- evidence in para. 4 has reiterated the contents made in the ejectment application. The said statement is also admitted by M/s. Jawaid, Abdul Majeed, and Rehmatullah witnesses of the appellants/tenants. All the said three have admitted that the premises shop was in the use of M/s. Soni Services. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that M/s Soni Services is the sister concern of the appellants, and the premises shop was in their use as admitted by the appellants' witnesses. The use of shop premises by the sister concern of the appellants without written permission of the respondent would amount to handing over the possession by the appellants to another person within the meaning of section 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Rent Ordinance.
10. Reference is made to Dr. Muhammad Yusuf Khan v. M/s. Pak American Academy 1989 MLD 2972; M/s. World Marine Services Limited v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and another PLD 1988 Kar. 164; Film Exhibitors Limited v. M/s. Trade Linkers and another 1984 MLD 557; M/s. Premier Mercantile Service and another v. S.M. Yousuf and 2 others PLD 1982 SC 79; Roshan All v. The Standard Insurance Co. Limited 1986 CLC 953; Shakil Ahmed and 4 others v. Kubrabai 1986 MLD 401 and Muhammad Yousuf Khan v. Moosa and another 1987 CLC 981. All the cited case laws support the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that handing over possession of shop premises to the sister concern by the appellants/tenants would amount to subletting/parting of possession to another person. In the instant case the respondent/landlady has proved from her own evidence as well as from the admission of the appellants/tenants that the shop premises was in use of M/s. Soni Services therefore latter were in possession of the same which being a separate entity under the law, the appellants would be deemed to have handed over the possession in favour of another person viz. M/s. Soni Services. Mere fact that appellant was one of the Directors of M/s. Soni Services would not make any difference or alter the position considering that a separate entity has come into existence who has taken over the possession of shop premises which was originally under the tenancy of the appellants. It is not the case of only use of telephone of the appellants by M/s. Soni Services but the appellants have parted with the shop premises in favour of another person. I do not find any substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and no exception could be taken to the finding of the learned Rent Controller.
11. Consequently the appeal has no merit which is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant/tenant is given ninety days period to vacate the premises subject to the conditions that they will deposit the rent in the office of Rent Controller for the said period.