1987 PLP 1607 (SCMR)

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Facts stated in brief are that the petitioner is alleged to be a partner in a firm carrying on business under the name and style of Haji Ghulam Muhammad & Company; that the respondents who jointly inherited the premises in dispute, in occupation of the petitioner's Company, sent a notice on 14‑6‑1981 to the petitioner inter alia asserting therein that the premises in dispute were required by respondent No.1 for his own occupation and use as he wanted to set up his business therein; that on refusal of the petitioner, respondent No.1 filed an application for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement; that the learned Rent Controller on 20‑3‑1983 ordered the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of requirement of the premises for personal use of respondent No.1; that an appeal was filed by petitioner before the Sind High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order with the direction to him to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within four months of the judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque, Senior Advocate submitted that the learned Judge in appeal has erred in holding that the rent case filed by respondents was maintainable. In fact, the petitioner was only one of the partners of the firm which had two other partners, and was paying rent. Although a registered firm can be sued through any of its partners yet in the case in hand the petitioner had specifically been sued in his personal capacity and the respondent had persisted in continuing proceedings against the petitioner; that the firm Messrs Haji Ghulam Muhammad & Company was refused to be recognized as a tenant; that the law of partnership recognises right/interest of each and every partner in each and every part of the assets of the partnership to the extent of their respective share, and, therefore, the status of the partners in case of tenancy in the name of the firm is that of co‑tenants; that the provisions of rent laws permit, by implication, the filing of rent proceedings by one of the several co‑owners, and there is nothing to provide conversely in respect of the tenants, which in any event would amount to non‑suiting the other tenants/ partners without hearing.

3. He further submitted that the learned Judge erred in holding that the firm Haji Ghulam Muhammad & Company is an unauthorised sub‑tenant; that the respondents had issued receipts in the name of the firm ever-since its incorporation in the year 1962; that the petitioner had produced rent receipts covering various periods ranging between July, 1967 to April, 1980 showing payment of rent by the firm, and therefore, the finding of the learned lower Court that no receipt had been produced by the petitioner is wholly erroneous and opposed to the documents on record and holding that the documentary evidence consisting of rent receipts was insufficient to establish the existence of tenancy in favour of the firm is totally misconceived by the Courts below. ?

4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record and find that the rent receipts have undoubtedly been issued in the name of the firm by the respondent and that the question of non‑impleadment of the other partners of the firm needs examination. We grant leave inter alia to consider the contentions raised by the learned counsel. Security rupees one thousand. Appeal to be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if desired. Appeal shall be fixed for hearing as early as possible. M.I./M‑142/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.