1984 PLP 748 (MLD)

During the pendency of the application, the appellant sought permission to amend his application. He was allowed to amend his application by the order dated 13-5-1980. It would be convenient if the order of the Controller is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference. "Heard both the learned parties' counsel. It is urged by the applicant's counsel that apart from section 14, of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the provision of section 15 of said Ordinance is also open for all the landlords, if the tenant commits any of the infringements of the provisions laid down, in this section, therefore he may be allowed to amend his main application and to add the ground of default. From the other side, the learned opponent's counsel argued, that the applicant has failed to produce the documents of his retirement, therefore, he cannot take the benefit of section 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Moreover, the notice of two months has not been produced. From the arguments advanced before me, to my mind the applicant cannot take benefit of section 14, Sind Rent Premises Ordinance, 1979, if he fails to prove his retirement within six months and that is to be seen, after the evidence is adduced. Moreover, the other grounds of the ejectment, of the tenant are open to him. The parties have not yet adduced their evidence. Accordingly, only on the mere technical defect, in the application, the whole of the case cannot be thrown out. Hence, I allow the applicant to amend his application, as prayed. Put off to 5-7-1980 for amended application." Thereafter, the appellant filed an amended application under sections 14 and 15 of the Ordinance wherein the appellant added two more paragraphs raising the ground of default in payment of rent. According to the order sheets, the respondent did not file any written statement nor made any application for extension of time and therefore, it was ordered that his first statement should be considered as his pleadings. Thereafter, the Controller recorded the evidence and after hearing the arguments, passed the above order. It is submitted by Mr. Zianul Haq Alvi, Advocate that the Controller erred in dismissing the application so far as the ground of personal requirement is concerned, for the reason that no case under section 14, of the Ordinance was made out as according to the counsel, the appellant's application was also under section 15 of the Ordinance and if he had not made out a case under section 14, the evidence established a case under section 15 of the Ordinance for personal bona fide requirement of the premises and, therefore, the learned Controller ought to have ordered eviction of the appellant on that ground. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant to the extent that the learned Controller ought to have considered the case under section 15 of the Ordinance as the appellant's amended application was also under that section and he should not have left the issue to be decided on a fresh application. I, therefore, remand the case to the Controller to give finding with regard to personal requirement of the appellant under section 15 of the Ordinance and decide the case according to the finding. Since the application was made in 1979, I would direct that fresh decision on the present state of record shall be given within three months. If any party feels grievance by the fresh order, he may file fresh appeal. The above order is passed after hearing Mr. Rashid Tariq Khan, Advocate. M. Y. H. Case remanded.