Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15 (2) (iii) (a)

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15 (2) (iii) (a)---Subletting---Tenant had himself admitted in his written statement that a part of premises in dispute was sublet by his son with his consent, but not with consent of landlord---Mere handing over possession of premises or even part thereof to another person without consent of landlord, was sufficient to make tenant liable for eviction---Ground of subletting, having, fully been made out by landlord against tenant, Rent Controller rightly ordered ejectment of tenant on ground of subletting. Shaikh Zubair Ahmed v. Ali Ahmed 1983 CLC 3254; Mst. Tooba Taliby and another v. Sultan Lakhdir and another 1984 MLD 74; Pakistan Food Manufacturers v. Sadiq Ishaque and others 1992 CLC 482; Mrs. Talat Farooq v. Naheed Jalil, Joint Mutawalli 1989 CLC 1348; Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Haji Muhammad Jamil 1982 CLC 1042 and Muhammad Yusuf Khan v. Moosa and another 1987 CLC 981 ref. Nazirullah for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent No. 1. Ata-ur-Rehman for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1992. JUDGMENT Appellant Muhammad Yaqub has called in question his eviction from the shop in litigation ordered by the 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi South under an order dated 14-11-1988 passed in Rent Case No.177/1988. Admittedly the shop in litigation situated in the ground floor of a building standing on Plot No-24, Sheet S.R.9, Siral Quarters, Karachi is owned by respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 and it was let out to the appellant and its present rent is Rs.110 per month. Rent Case No.177/88 was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 for eviction of the appellant and the respondent No.5 from the shop in litigation, on the ground that the appellant had sublet a part of the shop to the respondent No-5 on monthly rent of Rs.800 per month. Respondents Nos.l to 4 sent such notice dated 12-1-1988 to the appellant, asking him to vacate the shop and surrender its possession but the appellant refused to do so.   In his written statement, the respondent No.5 admitted having been sublet, by appellant's son Ghulam Farid with consent of the appellant, a part of the shop in litigation where…