1988 PLP 1720 (CLC)

(f) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 14‑‑Widow who purchased a house after the death of her husband for her personal use, can apply under S.14 for ejectment of tenant, similarly, if after retirement a landlord acquired property and he continued to be a retired employee, he was entitled to press into service provisions of S.14., Domani v. Miss Hamida Begum 1983 CLC 317 and Mohammad Ali v. Mst. Hameeda Begum 1988 SCMR 705 ref. K.B. Bhutto for Appellant. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqi and S.M.. Abbas for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th April, 1988. The respondent filed an application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance for ejectment of the appellant from shop No‑5 A1‑Momin Plaza situated at Burns Road, Karachi. This property was purchased by him on 26‑6‑1980 and at that time the previous owner had informed the appellant about the sale. The respondent claims to be a retired Government servant and requires the premises for his own bona fide personal use and occupation. A notice dated. 13‑7‑1985 was served as contemplated by section 14 and thereafter as the appellant did not vacate the premises ejectment application was filed on 19‑7‑1986. The appellant filed his written statement and pleaded that his father was the original tenant of the shop who had contracted to purchase it from the previous owner under an agreement dated 12‑7‑1979 but the respondent who is the brother‑in‑law of appellant's father intervened and purchased the said shop in his name by playing fraud upon him .and taking undue advantage of his illiteracy. There after, the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 1582 of 1985 against the appellant in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Karachi claiming himself to be the proprietor/ owner of the tailoring business which was being run in the shop even before the respondent had purchased it. In that suit the respondent had alleged that appellant's father was merely a caretaker of that business. However, he withdrew the suit on 18‑8‑1985 and filed ejectment Case No. 1693 of 1985 before the Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. During the pendency of this application he filed application under section 14 which is not maintainable. It was pleaded that the respondent after retirement from Government service is employed with Messrs Abdullah Flour Mills. The learned Controller by the impugned order granted the ejectment application. Mr. K.B. Bhutto the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the ejectment application under section 14 is not maintainable because firstly when the ejectment case was filed the respondent was not a retired employee and secondly, that the property was purchased after retirement from the Government service. There is hardly any dispute about the fact that the respondent was a Government employee and he retired on 1‑1‑1980. On 26‑6‑1980 he purchased the disputed shop and in the year 1983 he obtained employment with a private company. The notice under section 14 was served on 1‑7‑1985 and ejectment case was filed on 19‑7‑1986. On these admitted facts it is to be considered whether re‑employment debars the respondent from invoking section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. The learned Controller has ‑observed that there is no bar under law that after retirement from Government service if he is employed in a private job he is not entitled to a relief under section

14. Section 14 is designed to provide speedy relief inter alia to a landlord of a building who is a salaried employee due to retire within the next six months or has retired or a person who is due to attain the age of sixty years within the next six months or has attained the age of sixty years. At the moment the question of a salaried employee is under consideration. This provision is applicable to every salaried employee whether he is employed with the Government, Corporation, statutory organisation or a private company. This provision applies to salaried employees irrespective of the persons with whom they are employed. The word 'salaried employee' is not qualified by the word 'Government'. It will be applicable to all the employees who in consideration of salary as remuneration are performing their job. Therefore, the approach of the learned Controller was completely wrong. The next question is, can a landlord who after retirement is re‑employed file ejectment application under section

14. The object of section 14 is to provide speedy remedy to such specified persons who have been treated as handicapped persons requiring special care and attention. It intends to provide a summary procedure for those who are widow, minor, orphan whose both parents have died andl retired employee or about to retire within six months. A landlord who claims to have retired but if he is re‑employed or joins another service no longer remains a retired person. The concept of retirement is that a person having completed his tenure of office or attaining the age of superannuation on having pensioned off is no longer in employment or service. The qualification of retirement should remain attached to the landlord if he seeks remedy under section 14 on the ground that he has retired. A widow who has remarried cannot file a case under section 14 claiming to be a widow in the past. Likewise the moment an employee who has retired joins any service, he ceases to be a retired person. And once this essential requirement ceases to exit the right to invoke section 14 also ceases. In the present case the respondent purchased the property after retirement. He then joined another service and during currency of his re‑employment he filed the ejectment application. The respondent could not have taken advantage of the past qualification which at the time of filing the application had ceased to exist. It has been contended that as property was purchased after the retirement, section 14 will not apply. Section 14 specifically provides that the landlord of a building who is a salaried employee due to retire within next six months or has retired may file an application for ejectment. The language of section 14 clearly denotes that when the ejectment application under section 14 is filed the landlord should have retired or is due to retire within next six months. A salaried employee who has retired can invoke section

14. As the benefit has been given to a landlord who has retired merely because he has purchased property after retirement will not debar him from seeking relief under section

14. I have noticed Domani v. Hiss Hamida Begum 1983 C L C 317 where it was held that a widow who purchases a property after the death of her husband cannot invoke section 14 because the expression landlord who is a widow does not permit such action. However in Mohammad Ali v. Mst. Hameeda Begum 1988 S C M R 705 the contention that a widow is not entitled to take advantage of section 14 as it is available to a widow who was either a sole heir of the original landlord or owned the premises in her own right before the death of her husband was repelled and it was observed:‑ "It is difficult to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. Quite obviously the object of section 14 (1), ibid, is to lessen the hardship which a widow not infrequently faces on the death of her husband and to assist her in settling down again. Therefore, it will not be proper to construe this provision in a manner which would defeat the very purpose for which it has been enacted. The relevant words in the subsection are 'the landlord of a building who is a widow'. There is no reason at all why these words should be taken to refer only to a widow who was the owner of the building before the death of her husband or who is sole heir of the original landlord. Such a narrow construction would leave out from the benefit of the provision in question a widow with minor children who has to leave the residence which was formerly given to her husband by his employer or one who purchases a house for personal use from the funds made available to her on the death of her husband; there is no compelling reason for placing such a narrow construction on the provision." Therefore, a widow who purchases a house after the death of her husband for personal use can apply under section

14. The case of a retired person is on a higher footing as the language employed is "the landlord of a building who has retired" which is different from the expression 'the landlord of a building who is a widow'. There is a marked difference in the language of both these expressions so far time of sequence and tense is concerned. This expression conveys a meaning that landlord of a building should be a person having retired from salaried employment. If after retirement he acquires property and continues to be a retired employee, he is entitled to press in service the provisions of section

14. In view of the above reasoning the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. H.B.T./A‑354/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.