1991 PLP 1051 (CLC)

(b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ S. 14 ‑‑‑ Where more than one premises were let out to one tenant, in case falling under S.14 of Ordinance, need of landlord should be restricted to one premises and in case it was extended to more than one premises, it was likely to create serious complications and dishonest claim could be pressed by landlord taking benefit of summary procedure of S.14 ‑‑‑ Rent Controller in circumstances, was justified in granting ejectment in respect of one premises and in view of convenience and nature of business, in holding that option was left to tenant. Muhammad Sadiq for Appellant. Rashid Akhtar Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st October, 1990 The appellant in F.R.A. 437/89 being the landlord filed an application under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for ejectment of the respondents. It was pleaded that the respondents are tenants in respect of three inter‑connected shops and as the appellant has retired from Government service he requires them for his own personal use and for the use and occupation of his children. The respondents denied the claim. The learned Controller by the impugned order held that the appellant is entitled to one shop out of three shops but the option was given to the respondents to choose which shops they would like to retain and which shop they would vacate. The appellant has challenged this order in Appeal No.437/89. The respondents have also filed Appeal FRA 452/89 challenging the order. This judgment will dispose of both the appeals. Mr. Sadiq, the learned counsel for the landlord contended that the respondents are tenants in respect of three shops on a monthly rent of Rs.210 and as there is one tenancy the learned Controller could not have bifurcated them into three and given an option to the tenant. According to Mr. Rashid Akhtar Qureshi the landlord has failed to prove his bona ride requirement and that his two sons are in Government service while the third one is a student and the appellant landlord himself is a sick man, having retired from a Government job he having no experience of any business of any nature. It is now well‑settled that in an application under section 14 bona fides of the landlord are not required to be proved in the same manner as in a case under section

15. The fact that a person has retired and requires the premises for his personal need is by itself treated to be a bona fide claim in good faith. The main question for consideration is whether a landlord within the purview of section 14 is entitled to file ejectment application in respect of one or more than one premises at the same time. In my view in cases which fall under section 14 the requirement and need should be restricted to one premises. If it is extended to more than one premises then it is likely to create serious complications and dishonest claims may be pressed taking benefit of the summary procedure of section

14. In the present case it is an admitted position that respondent is a tenant in respect of three interconnected shops. This is what has been stated in the application. Therefore there are three shops which have been let out to one person. Mr. Sadiq contended that there is only one tenancy. It seems to be one tenancy because three shops have been rented to one person. So far premises are concerned they are three, and tenancy is always created in respect of building and premises. Therefore, in my view the order of the Controller is justified in granting ejectment in respect of one shop. Mr. Sadiq contended that the option should be left to the appellant. In such circumstances if the option is left to the landlord it, may be disastrous to the tenant and may ruin his entire business. Therefore, considering the facts, convenience and the nature of business, the Controller was justified in holding that the option was left to the tenant‑respondents. The appellant case is covered by section 14 and his claim for eviction in respect of one shop is legal and proper. Both the appeals are dismissed. The tenant shall vacate the premises within 60 days from today. Mr. Qureshi has stated that the tenants namely Taufiq Engineering Works shall vacate the shop which is adjacent to Dr. Firdous's clinic. In case they do not vacate within a period of 60 days writ of ejectment shall be issued without notice. H.B.T./M‑1339/K Appeals dismissed/order accordingly.