1988 PLP 1579 (MLD)

This first appeal has been filed against the order dated 15th February, 1986, of 1st Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (West), Karachi whereby the rent application of Mst.Tahira Begum has been dismissed. The facts are that Rent Case No.2022 of 1984 was filed under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (hereinafter to be referred to as `Ordinance'). The Written statement was filed on 23rd July, 1984. Parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence before the Rent Controller and on 8‑12‑1984 appellant moved an application under section 151, C. P.C. in which it was prayed that case be converted from section 14 to section 15 of the Ordinance. In para.3 of affidavit appellant Mst.Tahira Begum submitted as under:‑ "That now I am advised that section 14 of the Rent Ordinance, in which I have filed the application would apply only if I would have required the case premises for my own use and occupation, but not for the use and occupation for my sons, irrespective of the fact that I am a widow." To this application respondent filed objections and opposed the application stating therein that in this case evidence of the applicant and her witnesses have already been taken and side was closed, therefore, opponent/respondent will be seriously prejudiced if such application is allowed. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that there is no provision in law to convert the application from one section to another as requested by the applicant/appellant. The Rent Controller by an order dated 13‑3‑1985 converted the case from section 14 to 15 of the Ordinance on the only ground that in order to avoid multiplicity of the litigation he has come to the conclusion that case to proceed under section 15 of the Ordinance. I have heard Mr.Kamaluddin, learned counsel for the appellant. He has argued the merits of the case and stated that as per section 15 of the Ordinance appellant has proved the case for personal bona fide requirements of her sons. With regard to the other point he submitted that he is not ready. Mr.S.M.Afzal appearing for the respondent, argued on the law point as well as on merits. The same plea has been taken that conversion of the case from section 14 to 15 is contrary to the law. It is an admitted position that appellant filed an application under section 14 after giving notice as required by law. He filed affidavit in evidence taking the grounds as required under section 14 of the Ordinance. Subsequently he has not pressed the application under section

14. The Rent Controller has decided the case as if it was before him under section 15 of the Ordinance. In my view this is wrong proposition and interpretation of law. Under section 19 the procedure for the Rent applications other than section 14 is laid down, and all these documents and affidavits in evidence can be filed under section 19 the, procedure under section 14 is of the summary nature which is different from section

19. No doubt the appellant can file the case under section 15 of the Ordinance on the different facts and circumstances. Therefore, the rent case under section 14 as initially instituted stands dismissed. But the Rent Controller has wrongly dismissed the application under section 15 by converting the section on the basis of evidence taken as required under section 14, therefore, the impugned order is not proper. It is now open to the appellant to file a fresh case under section 15 if so advised. These observations should not come in the way of appellant before the Rent Controller if case is filed under section 15 independently which is to be decided on fresh evidence and law. M.Y.H./T‑30/K Appeal allowed.