1989 PLP 549 (CLC)

The question that has been raised in this appeal filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) relates .to the interpretation of subsection (2) of section 14 of the Ordinance.

2. The appellant, who is landlord of the tenement No.4, in Mohanlal Mangadas Building, Karachi, and who was in service of M/s. Volkart (Pakistan) retired after 35 years of service on 12‑0‑1983. On 4‑12‑1984, the appellant served a notice to the respondent for vacating the said premises used as a godown as required under section 14 of the Ordinance. The refusal of the respondent to vacate the demised premises led the parties into this litigation.

3. The parties adduced the evidence before the Rent Controller, Karachi, who dismissed the application for ejectment vide order dated 2‑12‑1985. The appellant challenged this order before the High Court in F.RA. No.8 of 1986, which was allowed on 3‑12‑1986, and the case was remanded back to the Rent Controller with the following directions:‑‑ "In these circumstances I set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remand the case back with the directions to give opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence afresh to the extent of requirement of section 14 only and decide the case on merits according to law as rent application has been filed under section 14 of the Ordinance."

4. Accordingly fresh affidavits in evidence were filed by the parties and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties the learned VI Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (South), Karachi, again dismissed the application for ejectment vide order dated 16‑11‑1987, giving rise to the present appeal.

5. Admittedly the disputed premises is being used as a godown. The record shows that the appellant who was working in Volkart (Pakistan) retired on 12‑9‑1983 (Exh.A/1 and A/2). The service of notice in terms of section 14(1) of the Ordinance is also not in dispute. It is the case of the appellant that he needs the disputed premises for his own business requirement. There is also evidence on record to show that the appellant is not in occupation of a building used as commercial premises owned by him in any locality. The respondent has simply questioned the bona fide requirement of the appellant by referring previous litigation between the parties. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Syed Israr Alam v. S.M. Hussain, reported in 1983 C L C 408 and Ghulam Muhammad v. Zahir Ahmed Khan, reported in 1986 C L C 681, wherein it was held that bona fide need of the landlord has to be established while seeking ejectment under subsection (1) of section 14 of the Ordinance. The case of Ulfat Hameed v. Mst. Birjis khatoon, reported in P L D 1982 Kar. 823, however, makes it clear that plea of want of bona fides is irrelevant in proceedings under subsection (1) of section 14 of the Ordinance, and once the requisites of this subsection are established and the landlord is not otherwise debarred under section 14, the plea of his requirement being not bona fide and reasonable is not open to the tenant. Since there was a conflict of decision on the interpretation of section 14 of the Ordinance, the matter was referred to a Division Bench in the case of M.S. Baroba v. Manzoor Ahmad reported in P L D 1986 Kar. 407, and the issue was resolved in the following words:‑‑ "Accordingly, we hold that in a case under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the question of 'good faith' or bona fides is not to be looked into, but the Controller has to see that the landlord fulfils the conditions mentioned in section 14 which we have enumerated hereinbefore."

6. The weighty observations of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Bakhsh Elahi v. Qazi Wasif Ali reported in 1985 S C. M R 291, may be usefully borrowed here:‑‑ "The object of section 14, therefore, seems to be to relieve this class of landlords from the rigours of an elaborate inquiry as to the good faith of their plea for requirement of the premises for personal use and to put them m possession thereof in the shortest possible time."

7. As observed above, the appellant has satisfied the following conditions:‑‑ (a) That he is a retired salaried person. (b) That he by a notice in writing informed the tenant that he needs the godown in dispute for his business requirement. (c) That he has not rented out any building used for commercial purpose after he has retired, and (d) That he is not in occupation of a building used for commercial purpose owned by him in any locality.

8. The appellant resides in House No.B‑120, Block No.10, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi, which is evident from the title of his ejectment application and memo of appeal. The appellant has, however, admitted that he uses his residential house as office also. The learned Rent Controller has gravely erred in equating the residence of the appellant with 'godown' or 'store'. The cases reported as Abdul Majid v. Mst. Naimunnisa (P L D 1981 S C 118) and Ulfat Hameed v. Mst. Birjis Khatoon (P L D 1982 Kar. 823), are relevant in this behalf. Subsection (2) of section 14 cannot be read in isolation from subsection (1) for there has to be a nexus between the personal use for which the eviction is sought, and the premises said to be owned or possessed by the landlord in any locality referred to in subsection (2).

9. In the result the appeal succeeds and the order dated 16‑11‑1987, thereby dismissing the application for ejectment is set aside. The respondent is directed to vacate the demised premises and hand over its vacant possession to the appellant within a period of two months. In view of the complicated point of law involve in this appeal, the parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑659/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal accepted.