UMAR ABDUL MAJID KHAN Vs. PARVEZ NARIMAN DHATIGARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) The 1st petitioner is the original tenant, and the 2nd petitioner the alleged sub-tenant. The respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords. Indeed, the second petitioner's status is disputed for the landlords maintain that he is an illegal sub-lessee. Only for the ease of reference do I prefer to refer to both the petitioners as tenants, instead of tenant and sub-tenant. That compendious reference should not prejudice the landlords, and their plea on sub-letting remains intact, though.

(3.) In October 2010, the landlords sued the tenants on the grounds of subletting and arrears of rent. The tenants were served the suit summons in November 2010. Later, on 26th November 2011, an advocate appeared before the trial Court and undertook to file a vakalatnama for the tenants. But he did not file any. In July 2012, the trial Court decreed the suit ex parte.