1989 PLP 732 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 18th August, 1988. The dispute in this case relates to a shop and mezanine floor situated in building bearing No.544/C, Block‑II, Central Commercial Area, Pakistan Employees Co‑operative Housing Society, Karachi. Hafiz Abdul Majeed, the respondent in this appeal is the owner of the said premises. He had let out a shop alongwith mezanine floor to Naik Muhammad, the appellant herein on a monthly rent of Rs.250 and Rs.100 per month respectively. The said tenant has been running his, business under the name and style of Niazi General Store. The owner of the premises filed an application for ejectment of the appellant under section 15(2)(vii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 before the IInd Rent Controller, Karachi (East). He sought ejectment of the tenant from the said premises on the ground of personal bona fide occupation and 'use. According to him since 1974 he in partnership with his two real brothers was carrying on the business of bakers in the name and style of "Rahat Bakery" in a shop adjacent to the shop of the tenant in this very same building. This space by itself being insufficient necessitated renting of two other shops in the adjoining building known as Fatima Lodge at the rent of Rs.450 per month. In order to run that business smoothly he needs the shop in question. The appellant resisted the said application and pleaded that the said premises was not needed for personal bona fide use of the landlord but was needed for running Rahat Bakery owned by his brothers. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence and the Rent Controller recorded a finding in favour of the owner and directed ejectment of the tenant within 45 days from his passing of the order which was passed on 23‑12‑1987. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. I have heard Mr. S.Inayat Ali, learned Advocate for the appellant and Ch. Muhammad Jamil, learned Advocate for the respondent. Both the learned Advocates have stated that only point requiring decision in this appeal is whether a partner who owns the premises can seek ejectment of tenant from the premises for the benefit of partnership business on the ground of requirement for his "own bona fide occupation and use" under section 15(2)(vii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. According to 61r. lnayat Ali requirement of a firm cannot be equated with the personal requirement of the owner within the meaning of the Ordinance and, therefore, the Rent Controller passed an erroneous order directing eviction of the appellant. It is further stated by him that the learned Rent Controller has illegally held that the premises in question are needed by the landlord for his own occupation and use when he had clearly stated in his pleadings that the premises were required for running of partnership business in which he had 1/3rd share. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Jamil appearing for the respondent /landlord submits that words "his own occupation and use" should be interpreted liberally to cover the business interest of the landlord as well. The only question requiring decision in this case is whether an ejectment application filed by the landlord for the benefit of partnership business known as "Rabat Bakery" is competent and the relief claimed by him can be granted under the provisions of section 15(2)(vii) of the said Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The relevant provision is reproduced as under:‑ Section 15(2). The Controller shall, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises within such period as may be specified in the order, if he is satisfied that:‑ (vii) the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or for occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children. It will be significant to note that the legislature has inserted word "own" between word "his" and "occupation" or "use" with a purposeful meaning. Every word in a statute is to be given its meaning and no word is to be taken as being redundant. "Own" when used as an adjective means belonging to oneself, exclusive, individual, particular, peculiar, private and proper according to Corpus Juris Secundum. The words "for his own occupation or use" B used in subsections (2)(vii) of section 15 of the Ordinance would simply mean for the exclusive or individual occupation or use of the landlord. The words "for his own use" occurring in section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 came under consideration in following reported cases: Dr. Miss

1. Ali Muhammad v. Muhammad Shafiq P L D 1971 SC 494; (ii) Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Bsshir‑Muhammad Nazir and Co. 1981 C L C 689; (iii) Messrs Fankson & Co. v. Mian Muhammad Hussain P L D 1973 Note 141 at p.213; (iv) Rustom Khudadad v. Aiakan Furniture Mart P L D 1962 Kar.79. In the case of Dr. Miss I. Ali Muhammad v. Mohammad Shafiq P L D 1971 S C 494 a lady doctor as the owner had sought ejectmeni of her tenant from the shop in her huitding on the ground that she required it in good faith for her own use, viz. running a second clinic. She was unsuccessful both in First and Second Appeals and thereafter she filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan the landlady created a trust in respect of all her properties including the disputed shop. She appointed herself as the trustee. Since the ownership o1 the building by creation of the trust had changed and running of the clinic was not one of the purposes of the trust created by her held that it could not be said that the shop was required use of the trustee as landlady and the appeal was dismissed The case of Messrs Fankson & Company v. Mian Muhammad Hussain P L D 1973 Note 141 at p,213 deals with a case of a landlord seeking ejectment of the shop for the use of the Company of which he was a share‑holder and a Director. Such prayer was declined as use by his Company was not considered to the use of the landlord. In the case of Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Bashir‑Muhammad Nazir 1981 C L C 781 the premises was owned by a firm and it was held that the premises owned by a firm can only be got vacated for the use of the firm and not for the use of any son of the partner in the firm under section 13(3‑a)(ii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Similarly, in the case of Rustom Khudadad v. Arakan Furniture Mart P L D 1962 Kar. 79 it was held that orphan nephews of the landlord were not such persons for whose benefit the ejectment could be granted under section 10(2)(c)(ii) of the Karachi Rent Restriction Ordinance. It is also important to take note of the provision made in section 15‑A of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which reads as under: "15‑A . Where the landlord who has obtained the possession of a building under section 14 or premises under clause (vii) of section 15, relates the building or premises to any person other than the previous tenant, or puts it to a use other than personal use within one year of such possession. (i) he shall be punishable with fine which shall not exceed one year's rent of the building or the premises, as the case may be, payable immediately before the possession was so obtained. (ii) the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of the building or the premises, as the case may be, and the Controller shall make an order accordingly." In case a landlord is successful to eject his tenant on the ground mentioned in clause (vii) of subsection (2) of section 15 and fails to out the tenement to his 'personal use' within one year of such possession he can be penalised as provided in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 15‑A of the Ordinance. It may be noted here word 'use' is preceded by word 'personal'. 'Personal' according to meaning given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary means 'one's own', 'individual', 'private'. Reading section 15 (a)(vii) and section 15‑A of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, it becomes clear that a tenant can only be ejected if the premises are required for exclusive use of the landlord. These words, therefore, cannot be interpreted to include occupation or use of landlord for his collateral uses. The scheme for the eviction of a tenant as provided in section 15 of the said Ordinance deals with two categories viz. (a) when the tenant can forfeit his tenancy rights by his own omission or commission mentioned in section 15(2)(ii)(iii)(iv) and (v) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and (b) when the premises are needed by landlord for one or the other purposes mentioned in section 15(2) (vi) or (vii) of the Ordinance. When a tenant forfeits his valuable tenancy rights on his own doing as in the first category the landlord succeeds to take back the tenement absolutely without any conditions But in the other case landlord requires the possession of tenement on certain conditions mentioned in section 15 (3)(4) and section 15‑A of the Ordinance. In case the premises recovered under section 15(2) (vii) of the Ordinance is put in occupation of someone else by reletting it the landlord has to face the consequences provided by section 15‑A of the Ordinance. As the tenant is evicted for no fault of his to the full advantage of the landlord it merely follows that strict meaning is required to be given to this provision of law. In this case the respondent /landlord had filed the ejectment, application for the occupation and use by his firm and not for his own occupation or use; the application itself is not competent in law. In the circumstances of this case the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and application for ejectment is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./N‑153/K Appeal accepted.