1986 PLP 1247 (MLD)

I have heard this appeal and dismissed the same by following short order on 9‑3‑1986. "Heard Mr. Kamil Shaikh and Mr. Nadeem. For reasons to be recorder this appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is allowed one year's time to vacate the shop with consent of Mr. Nadeem, but appellant shall have to continue to deposit the rent regularly. Writ of possession against appellant will be issued without notice against the appellant after 1 year, but it can be issued earlier in case of default in payment of rent." The reasons are that the appellant is the tenant of the shop in question at the rate of Rs.90 per month which is situated in the house of the respondent at Plot No.368, Block‑15 Gulistan‑ e‑Mustafa, Karachi. The respondent was retired from Government service on 17‑1‑1985. He gave notice to the appellant under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 'to vacate the said shop as the respondent needed it for himself. The notice was refused. The respondent then filed ejectment case under section 14 of, the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

3. The appellant in his written statement denied that shop was personally required by the respondent. He stated that rent was only RI‑80 in 1969 which was increased to Rs.90 in 1972 and since January, 1984, it had been increased to Rs.250 per month. He further stated that the respondent had rented out another shop in the said house to another tenant and after vacating of the said other shop by its' tenant the respondent had amalgamated the same with his residential house with ulterior motive. The case was also filed with ulterior motive to increase the rent or to take Pugri or big advance amount.

4. The issue of personal need under section 14 was framed.

5. The respondent supported his case by his own affidavit. He produced document showing that he had been retired. He also produced the registered notice which he had sent to appellant to vacate the premises. Respondent also summoned the postman to prove that the appellant's servant had refused to receive the said notice. Respondent had admitted in cross‑examination that after vacating the shop by other tenant he had converted the same into a room and used it as residence. Respondent had claimed some business experience. He denied that he did not need the shop.

6. The appellant in his affidavit stated that shop adjacent to the disputed shop had beer. rented out by the respondent to Siddiq Estate Agency and after it was vacated by the said agency it was occupied by the respondent. He further stated that back portion of the shop was also in possession of the respondent but it was closed and converted into a room. The appellant however, admitted in cross that there was only one shop when ejectment case was filed. He also admitted that other portion of the house is used for residential premises by respondent.

7. D.W.2 Rafiq Ahmed stated that the shop adjacent to present shop had been rented out by respondent to Siddiq Estate Agency but about one year before the said shop was vacated by Siddiq Agency.

8. The Rent Controller granted the ejectment on 16‑12‑1985 as he had come to the conclusion that the respondent needed the same for personal use after his retirement. Hence this appeal.

9. Mr. Kamil .Shaikh had argued that the, respondent did not need a shop as he had converted another shop vacated by Siddiq Agency into a room of his residence. The submission of the counsel does not appear to be correct. The conversion made by the respondent was one year before this matter and, therefore, it was hardly any relevance. Moreover, the conversion of shop in a residential room shows that the respondent needed an extra room for residence of the family, therefore, he foresook the monthly income from the shop. No cross‑examination was directed against the respondent on the point that he did not need extra accommodation for the residence when he hade the conversion.

10. What is important is that at the time of his retirement in January, 1985, the respondent had only one shop which was on rent with the appellant and since the law allows a retiring person the privilege of having a premises vacated after summary enquiry about his need, then, if his need is established, he has to be allowed to get the premises.

11. It is an admitted position that the respondent has retired. He has stated that he wants to do business in this shop. There is no available shop with him today nor there was an when he filed the application for ejectment. Moreover, if the respondent does not use the premises for his business then the appellant can seek relief under section 15‑A of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and hence positior of the appellant is safeguarded to that extent.

12. It is, therefore, obvious that this appeal has no force. Therefore it was dismissed on 9‑3‑1986. H.B.T. Appeal dismissed.