P L D 1986 Karachi 341 (PLP)

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the appellant against the order of Rent Controller, dated 23‑10‑1984. Brief facts of the case are as follows :‑. The appellant instituted rent application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 10‑2‑1981 after serving required notice. The proceedings were contested before the Rent Controller and on the basis of the controversy between the parties the Rent Controller framed following four issues in the case :‑ (1) Whether the application is not maintainable ? (2) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and. tenant between the parties regarding the first floor of the house in dispute ? (3) Whether the applicant is entitled for ejectment of the opponent from the premises in question under section 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 ? (4) What should the order be ? On issues Nos. I and 2 the Rent Controller gave a positive finding in favour of the appellant. However, on issue No. 3 he came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish her bona fide require ment in respect of the premises in dispute and in reaching this he also took into consideration that the application was unreasonably delayed for two years. It is an admitted position that the appellant became widow on 22‑11‑1973. The Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was enforced in the Province of Sind in November, 1979 but at that tame it contained the following proviso :‑ "Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply where more than six months have elapsed since the landlord has retired or attained the age of sixty years or as the case may be, has become widow or orphan." The above proviso was deleted by the amending Ordinance which was promulgated on 1‑9‑1980 and within six months of that amendment the application was presented by the landlady before the Rent Controller under section 14 of the Ordinance after serving notice in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance which required that at least two months' time should be given to the tenant, in the notice served under section

14. In these circumstances it is quite clear that there was no delay as such in filing the application as held by the Rent Controller in his impugned order. The other point on which the application was disallowed by the Rent Controller is that the appellant has failed to establish her bona fides of the requirement of the premises. In the case of Ulfat Hamid v. Birjis Khatoon (P L D 1982 Kar. 823) I had the occasion of examining in detail the provision of section 14 of the Ordinance. I held in that case that in proceedings under section 14 of the Ordinance the Rent Controller cannot held enquiry in the genuineness of the demand of landlord for the premises. The scope of enquiry before the Rent Controller in proceedings under section 14 of the Ordinance is also set out in detail in the above‑cited case. In .'l view of the above legal position the Rent Controller should have allowed the application after having reached the conclusion that the applicant is a widow and the application was maintainable. I accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Controller. The ejectment application is granted as prayed. Since the respondent has not appeared and defended the case I will make no order as to costs. H. B. T. Appeal accepted