1989 PLP 3585 (MLD)

Hasan Feroze for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th October, 1988. This appeal arises from the order of the learned VIIIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (South), Karachi, whereby he has dismissed the application made by the appellant under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called `the Ordinance') for eviction of the respondent from the residential premises bearing No. R.C. 5/31 situated on Lala Dana Street, Ranchore Lines, Karachi (hereinafter called `the demised premises').

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. The solitary short but important point involved it this case is as to whether a landlady, who is already in occupation of residential portion of the building, but which is not sufficient for her needs inasmuch as it does not have laterine, could avail of the benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance. The qualification laid down by section 14(1) of the Ordinance for a landlord, who is entitled to avail the benefit provided thereby, are undoubtedly possessed of by the appellant inasmuch as she is a widow and has also retired from Government service on attaining the age of supperannuation. She had also complied with the statutory requirement of informing the tenant/respondent by a notice in writing. The only ground on which the learned Rent Controller has refused to allow the relief to her is that she is in occupation of a building owned by her and hence her case is hit by subsection (2) of section 14 of the Ordinance. It seems appropriate if the relevant portion from the impugned judgment is extracted below: A bird's glance over the language of subsections (1) and (2) of section 14 is sufficient to make it clear that a landlord who is in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality is not entitled to avail, the benefit of subsection (1). Now word `building' as defined by section 2 (a) of the Ordinance is Building means any building or part thereof together with all fittings and fixtures therein, if any and includes any garden, garage, outhouse and open space attached or appurtenant thereto". In the present case since the applicant is admittedly already in possession of a portion of the same building on ground floor therefore I agree with the learned Defence Advocate that this application being a/s 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is not maintainable and the applicant cannot seek eviction of opponent from the; tenancy premises under section 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 are therefore decided in negative."

3. Mr. Abdul Wajid Wyne, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently urged that since the premises in occupation of the appellant in the building in question is not sufficient for her needs hence the appellant was entitled to apply for and get relief under section 14 of the Ordinance. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a decision in the case of Ashfaq Ahmed Qureshi v. A. Khidmani (1986 CLC 1134). The facts of the above case are distinguishable from this case on its own facts in so far as the landlord's being in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality is concerned. The next case cited by him was an unreported judgment given by me in Mst. Syeda Khatoon v. Matloob Hasan (in F.R.A. 29/1986) on 7-7-87. The facts of this case were also not identical to the facts of this instant case. In that case the landlady had specifically pleaded that she did not own any other property anywhere in Pakistan except the property in which the shop in question in respect of which the ejectment application had been filed against the tenant was situated.

4. In the instant case the appellant is admittedly in occuapation of a portion of residential building owned by her. Hence irrespective of the fact whether it is sufficient for her requirement or not, she is, in view of the specific bar as contained subsection (2) of section 14 of the Ordinance, not entitled to avail the benefit of subsection (1) ibid. If the present building in her occupation is not sufficient for her needs then she may apply for the eviction of the respondent under section 15 of the Ordinance but she was legally disentitled to make an application under section

14. In this view of the matter her application under section 14 has been rightly dismissed by the learned Rent Controller and no, legitimate objection can be taken against the impugned order.

5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./H-151/K Appeal dismissed.