1987 PLP 1490 (SCMR)

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑ The petitioner who is the tenant of the respondents in one of the six outhouses on an open plot of land, seeks leave to appeal. from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 4th September, 1986, by which her appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was dismissed.

2. The dispute between the parties has a chequered history of litigation comprising various proceedings under the rent laws which is not necessary to be described in detail. The present petition arises out of an ejectment application filed by respondent under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. According to the impugned judgment the respondent had also sought eviction of the tenants in five other outhouses under section 14 of the said Ordinance. It seems that admittedly the landlord already filed applications under section 15 of the said Ordinance against all the tenants in the outhouses on the ground of reconstruction of the main building on the plot which is said to have been demolished, leaving the outhouses still intact as r, they were occupied by tenants. The learned Rent Controller accepted all the applications of the landlord under section 14 of the said Ordinance including the one against the petitioner. 2‑A. Being aggrieved the tenants preferred separate appeals in all the six cases which came up for hearing before the learned Judge of the Sind High Court together. The learned Judge took the view on the basis of a judgment of this court that a landlord would be entitled to obtain ejectment of the tenant under section 14 of the Ordinance, in respect of one tenement and not all the six tenements. Accordingly he put the landlord to a choice to select one tenement and in pursuance thereof the latter without prejudice to his contention that he was entitled to evict all the tenants, pressed the ejectment of the petitioner alone. In the result the learned Judge by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order of ejectment in respect of other tenants.

3. The main contention raised by Mr. N.K. Jatoi, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition is that in view of the admitted position that the landlord wishes to demolish the outhouses in order to erect a new construction on the plot of land, the case of the landlord did not fall within the ambit of the provisions of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance and his application for eviction of the petitioner was liable to be dismissed on that ground. We find that the question raised is of first impression. Learned counsel submitted that in the plan sanctioned by the K.M.C. for the new construction that the landlord proposed to raise on the plot, there is no provision for outhouses and at any rate according to the plan area on which the outhouses now stand is proposed to be left vacant. The question is whether in such circumstances where undisputedly the object of the landlord is to demolish the building, the landlord could legitimately claim possession of the premises under section 14 on the ground of personal use. The argument raises a substantial question of interpretation of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which is likely to affect a large number of cases. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal. Security for costs Rs.500. The appeal shall be prepared on the same record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if any and shall be put up for hearing at an early date. S. Q./M‑120/S Leave granted.