1993 PLP 124 (CLC)

The appellant/landlord A.R. Tahir is aggrieved with the judgment dated 31‑8‑1991 passed by the Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi East whereby he dismissed Rent Case No. 471 of 1986 filed by him against his tenant namely M/s. Muhammad Ali & Sons respondent herein under section 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for eviction from shop No.1, 706‑0, Central Commercial Area, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi. The case of the appellant is that he was due to retire from the post of Sub‑Engineer, Karachi Development Authority (Engineering Wing), Karachi vide office memorandum dated 9‑2‑1986 within next 6 months with effect from 13‑11‑1986 and was granted L.P.R. It was averred by the appellant that after his retirement he has planned to start his own business in the shop in question situated towards market side and is suitable for his personal requirement and use. Accordingly notices dated 14‑4‑1986 under section 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 were served by him upon the respondent through Registered A.D. as well as under Postal Certificate but the same were of no avail. This application was resisted by the respondent who in their written statement has denied the said requirement stating that the appellant has similar shop/premises in the said building which was also pointed out by them in their reply to the said notice. It was further alleged that the object of filing the ejectment application is to obtain huge amount of Pugree after it is vacated. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application on the preliminary point that the appellant did not comply with the requirement of section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 inasmuch as the period of 6 months prior to his retirement on 13‑11‑1986 started from 13‑5‑1986 whereas the notice under section 14 was sent by the appellant one month earlier i.e. 14‑4‑1986 and hence it was bad in law. Reliance was placed by the learned Controller on the case of Syed Hasan Askari Rizvi v. Muhammad Aziz, PLD 1989 SC 1, in which it was observed: "We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. The appellant was in the Railway Police. serving as Head Constable. He was due to retire and to attain the age of sixty years on 3rd December, 1985. He served notice on the respondent under section 14(1) of the Ordinance on 30th May, 1985 which was stated to have been received by the respondent on 1st June, 1985. Thus, it is evident from these dates that it was sent four days before the date when it should have in fact been sent. Consequently if section 14(1) of the Ordinance is to be strictly interpreted because this is a special provision introduced in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance by way of an amendment to benefit the categories of landlords mentioned therein, then the notice in the instant case sent by the appellant to the respondent under the aforesaid section was premature as the same was given four days moray than six months before the date on which the appellant was due to retire or to attain the age of sixty years. Thus, strictly speaking, it was not in strict compliance with the provisions of section 14(1) of the Ordinance and as such was correctly held to be invalid." Here it would be advantageous to reproduce relevant provision of section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance which runs as follows: "

14. Delivery of vacant possession.‑‑(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance or any other law for the time being in force, the landlord of a building who is widow, or a minor whose both parents are dead or 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, may, by notice in writing, inform the tenant that he or she needs the building for personal use and requires him to deliver vacant possession of the building within such time as may be specified in the notice not being earlier than two months from the receipt thereof: Provided ......................................................... (2) ........................................................... .. (3) .......... It was contended by Mr. S. Ali Ahmed Tariq, learned counsel for the appellant, that the present case is distinguishable from Syed Hassan Askari Rizivi's case (supra) inasmuch as there was a specific issue in the latter case as to whether the case of the applicant was governed by section 14 of the Ordinance but there was no such issue in the present case. In the circumstances, the learned Rent Controller could not have exceeded in his jurisdiction by taking suo motu notice of irregularity if any committed by the appellant in not complying with the provisions of section 14(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. In the first place there is no specific issue but an issue of general nature as held in the above reported case. Secondly, it is the bounden duty of the Rent Controller to see if the statutory requirements as envisaged under .section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 have been fulfilled by the landlord before he passed an order of eviction of the tenant. He must be satisfied that the ground for eviction of a tenant is available to a landlord. ' In the abovementioned case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan also held that "the provisions of section 14(1) of the Ordinance are special and for the benefit of some landlords who fall in certain categories given in section 14(1) of the Ordinance and that it should be strictly interpreted because the general provisions under which an application can be made for ejectment of a tenant before a Rent Controller are given in section 15 of the Ordinance". Accordingly the appellant's application under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance is premature. While parting with the case, it may be stated that section 14(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 covers two different situations of personal needs of a landlord. One, in which the landlord is due to retire or attain 60 years of age within six. months during which period he is required to serve upon the tenant a notice in writing of not less than two months to vacate the building. The other would extend to widows, minors whose both parents have died, persons who have attained the age of 60 years and retired salaried employees. In the latter case a landlord would only be required to serve upon its tenant a notice in writing of not less than two months to vacate the building on this ground. The appeal having no merit, I dismiss it but with no order as to costs H.B.T./T‑145/K Appeal dismissed.