1. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF LEGHARI, J.--- The appellants have assailed the impugned order dated 30.5.1998 through this appeal passed by IInd Rent Controller, Karachi Central in Rent Case No. 829 of 1993, whereby he has allowed the ejectment applications filed by respondents.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent/applicants (hereinafter referred to ' respondents') are the co- owners of the Plot bearing No. R-529, Block No. 15, Federal ' B' Area Karachi measuring 120 sq. Yds.
3. And a single storey is constructed thereon. They have purchased it from Syed Tahir Hussain through Sale-Deed dated 12.8.1992. Appellant No. 1 Tariq Hussain is the tenant in respect of shop constructed in the said house since July, 1988 by tenancy agreement dated 23.7.1988 executed between him and the previous owner. The respondents after the purchase of the property sent an intimation notice to appellant as required under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 12.9.1992. At the time of filing ejectment application, appellant No. 2 was paying rent to respondents at the rate of Rs.550 per month. The respondents moved ejectment application through their father as attorney as they required the shop for their personal bona fide use in good faith. The appellant No. 1 was serving in Saudi Arabia. His attorney and father-in-law responded to notice sent to tenant but did not vacate the shop. The father of minors was running Decoration Service business and he wanted to expand his business and intending to run catering business.
4. The plea was raised that appellant No. 1 who was tenant had sub-let the premises to appellants Nos. 2 and 3.
5. Father-in-law of appellant No. 1 tenant filed the written statement on their behalf. He stated that the Court has no jurisdiction in the matter on the ground that appellant No. 1 had acquired the shop on the payment of heavy amount of Pagri allegedly paid to previous tenant and also to the previous landlord for the change of tenancy. The appellants denied personal bona fide need of respondents and so also the act of sub-letting. The plea was raised that appellant No. 1 was out of country and is running the business, under the supervision of father-in-law who is his attorney and the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were employee of appellant No. 1.
6. The father of respondents filed his affidavit in support of ejectment application. Mustafa Hussain Kassm i father-in-law of tenant also filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of appellant No. 1.
7. The Rent Controller out of the pleadings of the parties settled the following issues:-
(1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction in the matter.
(2) Whether the application requires the dismissed premises for their personal use and for -use and occupation of their father?
(3) Whether the opponent No. 1 has sublet the premises in dispute to opponents Nos. 2 and 3.
(4) What should the order be?
8. The Rent Controller ultimately allowed the ejectment application filed by that: respondents which is impugned in this appeal.
9. It is contended by M/s. Muhammad Zaki Ahmed and Muhammad Saleem Mangrio learned counsel for the appellants that the minors are share-holders of the property to the extent of 50 paisa and cannot file the ejectment application as major shareholder is not party to the proceedings. It is pleaded that the plea of personal bona fide use by the father of minors is not raised in the application and the same could not be subsequently agitated at later stage. The ground for carrying on business does not appeal to be true in the sense that the catering now-a-days is prohibited in wedding ceremonies. It is submitted that sub-letting has not been proved as the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are the employee of appellant No. 1 and running business on his behalf as he is out of country. Respondents have failed to prove the averments made in the ejectment application and Rent Controller failed to appraise the evidence adduced by the parties in right directions. The evidence is misread and misconceived by the Rent Controller.
10. Mr. S. I-{amid Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the. Respondents has submitted that major share-holder- is grand-father of the respondents. Their father is the attorney of minors, through whom the ejectment application is filed. Any share-holder 6r co-owner can file ejectment application. It is asserted in para. 2 of the ejectment application that the demised premises is wanted for the benefit of the minors. The 'respondents do not have any other property in Pakistan.
11. Reference is made to the case of Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Naeem Khan and 2 others (PLD 1983 Peshawar 118). The plea that the ejectment application is not maintainable, as the respondents were the share-holders of property to the extent of 50 paisa not tenable as it is settled law that any co-owner of the property can file an ejectment application against the tenant. The Rent Controller, therefore, had the jurisdiction in the matter to entertain ejectment application .And proceed with the same. Reference this context can be had to a case of Taj Muhammad v.
12. Muhammad Naeem Khan and 2 others (PLD 1983 Peshawar 118). The arguments to the effect that Pagri amount was paid by the tenant to its previous owner and the then tenant, cannot be sustained as the same is the only intervening and mutual arrangement -between the parties which in no way would come in the- way of landlord for instituting ejectment proceedings for personal bona fide need in good faith. Reference can be had to the case of Shaikh Muhammad Yousaf v. District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others (1987 SCM R 307) and M.K. Muhammad v.
13. Muhammad Abu Baker (1993 -SCMR 200'). Although a receipt of Pagri amount was produced in the Court but the said receipt did not contain any amount of Pagri. It only indicates that the amount of Rs, 2;60,000 paid by appellant No. 1 to the previous tenant being price of the articles lying in the shop.
14. The agreement of tenancy dated 23.7.1988 shows that an amount of Rs.5,000 was deposited with the landlord. Even in evidence, it is admitted that Pagri amount has not been mentioned in the receipt nor any document in proof of Pagri has been produced by the tenant/appellant No. 1. The respondents have denied the payment of Pagri and burden lies upon the appellant No. 1 to prove affirmatively that he paid Pagri amount and made such arrangement with the landlord as well as tenant. Nor such case has been made out by the appellant No 1.
15. The documents and the evidence led by the parties reveals that appellant No. 1 -.Admittedly is residing at Saudi Arabia and business is being carried in the demised premises by appellants. Nos.
16. 2 and 3. This fact is to be proved by the appellant No 1 that he in fact is running business and the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are only his agents. No documentary evidence. To that effect has been produced by the appellant No. 1. The appellant No. .1 is at Saudi Arabia for the last 16/17 years and is employee in Saudi Arabia Air Lines The demised premiss is adjacent to the shop of the father of the respondents. Portion of 1/4th is in possession of appellant No. 1 whereas the remaining portion which is adjacent is in possession of father of respondents. The portion in possession of the father of the respondents is not sufficient accommodation for running carting business and he wants to expand his business in the adjoining premises. Expansion of business is the right of the, landlord and is a valid ground for seeking ejectment which cannot be denied if it is made in good faith and for bona fide needs. The portion already in possession of the father of respondent is not sufficient to meet the requirements of landlord. The plea that this ground was not agitated in the ejectment application is without force as the ejectment application contained that demised premises was required for the benefit of the minors.
17. The respondents have made out the case of personal bona fide -need of the demised premisses for expansion of their business, The next controversial point outstanding between the parties is sub-letting of the premises to appellants Nos. 2 and 3. The record reveals that the appellant No. 1 is residing at Saudi Arabia he last 16/17 years and, is employees in Saudi Air Lines.
18. The record reveals that power-of-attorney was given by the appellant No. 1 in favour of his father- in-law in the year 1984 en business in the case premises had not yet started. The remises was let out to the appellant No. 1 in July, 1988, herefore, the evidence of attorney for appellant No. 1 has. No force. The appellants Nos.
19. 2 and 3 have not been examined in the Court. The applicants Nos. 2 and 3 moved an application under section 19(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 hen the matter was fixed for final arguments, which was dismissed by the Court of Rent Controller on 1.11.1995. In such circumstances the case of sub-letting has been successfully roved by the respondents. It is well-settled that mere handing ver possession of the premises by a tenant to some other person without the consent of the landlord, is sufficient to hold that the Kant has violated the terms and conditions, of the tenancy agreement and is liable for eviction.
20. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any exception to the findings of the Trial Court and the same does not call for rerference. The F.R.A. No.522 of 1.998 is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.