1986 PLP 910 (CLC)

This first rent appeal has been filed by Zamir Ahmed landlord against the order, dated 27th September, 1981 passed by VIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi whereby he dismissed the rent application of the appellant. Appellant is landlord of Bungalow No.207‑C‑11 P.E.C.H. Society Karachi, whereas respondent is his tenant in respect of half portion of the ground floor of abovesaid bungalow on the monthly rent of Rs. 475 per month. Appellant filed application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). On the ground of his personal requirements. The respondent filed written statement. The bent Controller on the pleadings of both the parties framed following issues:‑ (1) Whether the ejectment application under section 14 of the Ordinance is maintainable in law? (2) Whether the appellant is entitled to avail of benefit under section 14 of the Ordinance? The Rent Controller held that the application under section 14 of the Ordinance is maintainable but on the point of personal requirement his findings are against the appellant, therefore, he dismissed his application and against that order this appeal has been filed. Before the Rent Controller Zamir Ahmed appellant was examined and on the other side respondent Ismail examined himself. Appellant has stated that his family consist of six grown up members which includes 3 sons and one daughter and they all require separate rooms for their accommodation. He further stated that his sons are of marriageable age and their marriages have been postponed for want of accommodation. He in his evidence stated that he has no other accommodation except this bungalow in which he is living with his family. In this cross‑examination he has admitted that he had filed ejectment case for the same premises which is still pending in the Court of Rent Controller. He has admitted that half of the building is in his possession and respondent is occupant of one half portion of the ground floor. The respondent in his evidence states that appellant is in habit of increasing the rent from time to time under one or the other excuses and that family of appellant consist of only 4 members. His both sons are students. The appellant has more than half portion of the ground floor and the entire first floor of the bungalow in his possession which is sufficient for the need of his family. Mr. Sher Ali learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the present, accommodation is not sufficient for the family of the appellant. Moreover, appellant is a religious‑minded person and his devotees visit him daily and accommodation in his possession is not sufficient ,therefore, this appeal be allowed. On the other hand Mr. Mohammad Hussain Memon, learned counsel for respondent has argued that appellant is in possession of entire first floor of the building as well as portion of the ground floor, therefore, he cannot take benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance. He has relied on cases reported in PLD 1981 S C 118 and P L D 1982 Kar.

823. According to section 14 a person can avail of the benefit but not entitled to avail of this concession if he is in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality. It is admitted that appellant is in possession of entire first floor and half the portion of ground floor. Both the learned counsel have frankly stated that application under section 14 is maintainable. The learned Rent Controller has also held that application is maintainable but let it be seen whether appellants demand for additional accommodation is bona fide. I am of the view that appellant cannot avail of the benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance as he is in occupation of 3/4th of the building which according to me is sufficient to accommodate family of 6 members. Furthermore, his separate case under section 15 of this Ordinance is also pending which could be decided independently on merits. It has been held in a case of Ulfat Hameed v. Mst. Birps Khatoon P L D 1982 Kar. 823 that if landlord is in actual and physical occupation of another building in any locality of same type and class for which eviction of tenant sought in that case application under section 14 of the Ordinance is not maintain able. The plain reading of the provisions of section 14 subsection (2) will show that landlord will be disentitled to apply under section 14 of the Ordinance if it is shown that he or she is in occupation of another building owned by him in any locality. It is to be shown by the tenant that landlord is in actual and physical occupation of another building of the same type and class and secondly landlord own such building In the present case it is admitted fact that appellant owns the bungalow and is in physical occupation of entire first floor and one half on the ground floor. The order of the Rent Controller is proper one. In view of the above discussion I dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. A . A . Appeal dismissed.