1985 PLP 1741 (CLC)

Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui for Appellant. Q.M. Rashidi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th January, 1985. This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is preferred by the landlord appellant against the order of Rent Controller, dated 24‑9‑1983 rejecting the application of the appellant under section 14 of the Ordinance. The application was filed by the appellant on ground that she has attained the age of 60 years. It is an admitted position that prior to the filing of the case under section 14 of the Ordinance the appellant had instituted a case in the year 1964 against the respondent for his eviction on the ground of default being No.347/64. During the pendency of that case the present appellant instituted another case on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of her husband under section 15 of the Ordinance as well as default which was registered as Rent Case No.1545 of 1979. It appears that during the pendency of the above case the appellant became 60 years of age and consequently, she served a notice on the respondent as required under section 14 (1) of the Ordinance, requiring the respondent to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the premises after expiry of period of two months. The respondent did not vacate the premises after expiry of the period of notice whereupon an ejectment application under section 14 of the Ordinance was filed. The Rent Controller after recording evidence of the parties dismissed the application on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish personal and bona fide need in respect of the premises applied for. In the words of the Rent Controller, the personal and bona fide requirement of the appellant were repelled as follows:‑ "From the evidence as brought on the record it is an admitted fact that the applicant prior to filing of this case, has filed R.C. No. 347/64 for the ejectment of the opponent and during its pendency, another R.C. No.1545/79 has been filed on the ground of personal requirement also which is still pending. Apart from this, it has come in the evidence that the husband of the applicant does not require the premises in case but the applicant who is admittedly living in the premises which is much superior than the premises in case. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention has relied on the case of Abdul Rashid v. Mohammad Zakria Khan reported in 1983 C L C 1304. In my opinion, the facts of this case are not applicable to the present case for the reasons that requisites of subsection (1) of S.14 are not established and from the long litigation and the conduct of the applicant, it is indicated that applicant wants to eject the opponent/tenant by "hook or crook". Apart from this, the need of the applicant is not bona fide but mala fide as she is already in occupation of better accommodation. In this view, I am supported by the decision of Chief Justice of Sind High Court given in case Syed Israr Alain v. S.M. Hussain reported in 1983 C L C

468. Wherein His Lordship has held that landlord's need is subject to judicial scrutiny in order to find whether the needs that he expresses are genuine or he is wanting more accommodation on account of desire to live in unreasonable luxury, or, a desire to dislodge his tenant. I therefore, hold that this applicant is not entitled to avail of the relief of section 14 of the S. Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979." Mr. Nlubarak Hussain Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that a Rent Controller while dealing with an application under section 14 of the Sind Premises Ordinance, 1979 could not enquire into the bona fide of the requirement of the landlord. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied on the cases of Ulfat Hameed v. Barjis Khatoon P L D 1982 Kar. 823, Abdul Rashid v. Mohammad Zakria Khan 1983 C L C 1304, Younus v. Mrs. Hamida 1982 C L C 580 and Mumtazuddin v. Sultan Jehan Begum P L D 1981 Kar.

329. It has been constantly held by this Court that a Rent Controller while deciding an application under section 14 of the Ordinance cannot enquire into the bona fides of the landlord's need. The scope of enquiry in such cases is restricted only to those jurisdictional facts which are mentioned in section 14 of the Ordinance. This question was examined at some length by me in the first noted case of Ulfat Hameed and I do not find any reason to depart from the view expressed in that case. The learned counsel for the respondent was unable to cite any contrary decision but has filed before me a leave granting order of the Supreme Court dated 7th June, 1984 in the case of K .P . Moidoo and another v . Mst. Noor Jehan Begum (Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. K‑307182) and on the basis of this order urged that the Rent Controller could hold an enquiry, in proceedings under section 14 of the Ordinance, as to the bona fides of the landlord's need. The learned counsel, however, admitted that no final order was passed by the Supreme Court in the above case and the matter was finally compromised between the parties before the Supreme Court. I accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Controller and grant the application filed by the appellant under section 14 of the Ordinance. After I dictated the order the learned counsel for the respondent stated that his client wants to file a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court against this order. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case I grant two months time to vacate the premises in the interest of justice whereafter he will be evicted from the premises without notice, if he failed to obtain further stay from the Supreme Court. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T. Appeal accepted.