P L D 1979 Karachi 747 (PLP)

(11) The licence may be terminated by the Company and the licensees at any time and without assigning any reason therefor, but without prejudice to the right of either party against the other in respect of any matter or thing antecedent to such termination. (13) It is hereby expressly agreed and declared as follows:‑ (d) That upon the termination for any cause whatsoever of this licence the property in any petrol then in the possession of the licensees shall automatically revert to and become vested in the company which shall beat liberty to remove or deal with the same in any manner it thinks fit reimbursing to the licensees the cost at the then current wholesale rate for the petrol taken over." On 1‑2‑1957, Abdul Rashid and Ihsanullah Khan entered into a deed of part nership under which they became partners of Shahrah ServiceStation compris ing of petrol section and service station. In other words Abdul Rashid became partner of Ishanullah Khan. In running the petrol pump and service station of which Ihsanullah Khan was the licensee of the Company. Clause 29 of this partnership provided that the partnership will stand dissolved in the event of the withdrawal of the licence by the Company.'

3. In the suit filed by Abdul Rashid the grievance made was that Ihsanullah Khan had conspired with the Company which resulted in revocation of the licence by the latter, following which, on 4‑3‑1958 the Company took possession of the petrol pump alongwith all other partnership assets and continued to remain in possession until. 13‑3‑1958. The Company was sought to be made liable for accounts by reason of the following allegation contained in para. 14 of the plaint:‑ That the fact that the business of Shahrah service station had been converted into a partnership firm composed of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in December, 1957, had been brought on defendant No. 2 company's record and was very well known to them (defendant No. 2) and also the fact that the property in the licence granted by defendant No. 2 had become the property of the plaintiff and. defen dant No. l: ' The company's reply to the aforesaid paragraph is contained in para. 11 of the written statement which is as follows:‑ "That each and every averment in para. 14 of the plaint is denied. It is submitted that under the terms of the licence and usual practice of the defendant No. 2, the defendant No. 1 could not alienate, transfer, assign, or share with the plaintiff either wholly or partially property of the defendant No. 2, or any benefits arising out of the licence or dealership without the written consent of the defendant No. 2, and which consent was never obtained by the defendant No.

1. The defendant No. 2, got information of the alleged partnership from sources other than the plaintiff or defendant No. 1, some time before the revocation of licence." In so far as the plaintiff's evidence is concerned it may at once be stated that it was not his case in his examination‑in‑chief that he had entered the licensed premises or come in possession of the petrol pump with the consent or with the knowledge of the company. In his cross‑examination he stated that Ihsanullah had taken him to the office of the company where he had met the Divisional Engineer Mr. Syed, who on enquiries, said to him, that he could become a partner but did not send anything to the company. The company's witness denied that the company recognised the plaintiff as a partner of Ishanullah in the petrol service station or that Ishanullah had approached him to recognise him as a parcner. The company's case was that after the termination of the licence they entered upon the premises which they were entitled to under the license agreement and on 13‑3‑19 8 inducted Sultan Ali as a licensee, after Sultan Ali had compensated Ihsanullah for his assets lying at the petrol pump including stock, furniture etc., which Ihsanallah had acknowledged in writing. In so far as Ihsanullah is concerned it is significant to note that he did not accept the partnership in his written statement and further stated that he had put the petrol pump business under the supervision of the plaintiff Abdul Rashid and employed his brother at the salary of Rs. 150 per month but later on Abdul Rashid clandestinely claimed to be the proprietor of the business.

4. It may be recalled here that prior to the present round of litigation Abdul Rashid had filed a suit for damages against the Company in this Court as well as Ihsanullah on the ground that he had been forcibly dis possessed from the petrol pump and its assets under a conspiracy between the company and Ihsanullah. The Court dismissed the suit holding that there was no privity of contract between Abdul Rashid and the company for Ihsanullah was the sole licensee and under the terms and conditions of this license Ihsanullah could not enter into any partnership with any body and that there was no proof in support of Abdul Rashid's version that the company had been informed of the partnership. This decision is reported in P L D 1966 Kar. 137, which was maintained in Letters Patent Appeal as well as by the Supreme Court.

5. Now, it is obvious that Ihsanullah was the sole licensee of the premises, the petrol pump, as well as the service station. The plaintiff Abdul Rashid was aware of this as well as the restriction imposed on Abdul Rashid under the license agreement as regards the parting with the possession of the premises or taking another, partner, for according to him, he had been assured by Ihsanullah that he will get his name inserted as a partner in Burma Shell. This was admittedly not done, therefore, if Abdul Rashid came on the premises he did so with full knowledge that he had no right to be a partner with Ihsanullah in the business of Shahrah Petrol Service. The company also never accepted him as a partner. The company was authorised under the license agreement to revoke the license which they did on 4‑3‑1958 which dissolved the partnership between Abdul Rashid and Ihsanullah. If Abdul Rashid came on the property unauthorisedly and had no right to be a partner with Ihsanullah I cannot understand how he could make the company liable to render him any accounts for what had transpired between him and Ihsanullab, namely, an alleged partnership deed between the two. To my mind, therefore, in these circumstances the company was not liable to render any accounts to Abdul Rashid and the impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained.

6. Before parting I may add that Ihsanullah, who appeared in person, contended that he was entitled to have a decree for accounts against the company but that would be entirely on different basis, namely, wrongful termination of lincence, depriving Ihsanullah of his alleged assets lying at the petrol pump and forcible agreement between him and Sultan, the subsequent licensee under which Ishanuilah admittedly received a large sum of money. Ihsanullah is not entitled in the present proceedings, to seek any accounts for the company.

7. The result, therefore, is that this revision application is allowed with costs. S. A. H. Petition accepted.