1987 PLP 419 (CLC)

3. The Rent Controller on the pleading of the parties framed the following issues:‑ (1) Whether the appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979? (2) What should the order be?

4. He has come to the conclusion that appellant is not entitled to benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance and dismissed the rent case.

5. Appellant examined himself whereas respondent and Muhammad Naqi were examined before the Rent Controller.

6. The relationship and the rate of rent is not disputed. The respondent in his written statement has not disputed age of the appellant. He has not produced an evidence relating to the age of respondent on the contrary in his written statement, he has stated that appellant completed the age of 60 years in the year 1968. The appellant in his evidence corroborated his version given in the rent case and admitted in cross‑examination that in Passport his permanent address is shown as House No. 533, P.I . B. Colony, Karachi. This Passport was issued on 7‑7‑1980. he has denied the suggestion that he ever contracted Estate Broker agent Mr. Naqi in connection with sale of the house. He has also denied to have any house in Shamsi Co‑operative Housing Society. He has stated that he purchased the disputed premises in the year 1966 and immediately send the notice asking the respondent to vacate the premises but not file rent case. However, he filed a rent case in the year 1967 on the ground of default in payment of rent.

7. The respondent in his evidence stated that he is in occupation of premises since 1949 when there was no construction on roof and he built a Kacha house. The appellant purchased it for from the Settlement Department and served the notice Exh.D.l. Thereafter, the appellant filed an Ejectment Case No. 537 of 1966 Exh.D.3. He produced a certificate copy of his written statement as Exh. D.5. He has stated that no case on the ground of personal requirement is filed and even the Rent Case No. 1018 of 1967 was subsequently withdrawn and also he did not press IInd Appeal No. 93 of 1977 before the High Court. He has produced the audit report of the Shamsi Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi as Exh.D/9(a) and stated that appellant owns houses and plots in the society including House No. B‑69.

8. Mr. Taqi is a Estate Agent and he has deposed that appellant asked him to sale his house of Shamsi Housing Society and talk was taped which has not been produced.

9. I have hezrd Mr. R.H. Farooqui for appellant and Mr. Zahid Husain Burhami, Advocate for respondent at length.

10. Mr. R.H. Farooqui contended that appellant is an old mad and has no other place to live, therefore, he can avail the benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance. Mr. Farooqui has referred to the cases reported in P L D 1982 Kar. 823, 1982 C L C 318, 329 and P L D 1983 Kar.

628. He contended that appellant is entitled to have benefit of section 14 when he is not in occupation of the building in any other locality.

11. Mr. Zahid Husain on the other hand argued that appellant has not come with Plean hands when there is documentary evidence that he is living in the House No. 533, P .I . B . Colony and has given his address in Passport. The next point which he pressed is that even otherwise the appellant attained at the age of 60 in the year 1968 i.e. after 15 years within mala fide intention filed this rent case.

12. I have gone through the record gave his residential address in the year 1980 in Passport as House No. 533, P.I.B. Colony. The applications of Passport are always signed and attested by the applicant. Therefore, there is no possibility of any mistake. Had the appellant been bona fide need of the premises, he should have filed rent case immediately after attaining at the age of 60 years. It has also come on record that in year 1967 he filed a rent case which ended in year 1982 but no ground of personal requirement was taken by the appellant. During the arguments it was also pointed out that an other rent case on the point of default has filed against the respondent which is pending. However, I do not like enter into the merits of that case and litigation between the parties. Keeping in view the appellant remained silent for over 15 years and did not come to avail of benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance, and also not proved personal bona fide requirement. In my view he is not entitled to get benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance.

13. For the aforesaid reasons the order of Rent Controller is proper and calls no interference. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. H . B . T . Appeal dismissed.