P L D 1986 Karachi 407 (PLP)

NAIMUDD'N, C. J.‑This appeal and First Rent Appeals Nos..621, 622, 623, 624 and 625 of 1985, all are from a common order dated 11‑11‑1985, passed by the Third Senior Civil Judge and Controller, Karachi South, in six separate rent cases under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordi nance, 1979 flied by the respondent/landlord against the appellants/tenants in respect of six separate premises for eviction of the appellants from out houses of the premises bearing No. 29, Street No. FT‑2 (Old Survey No. JI‑27, Frere Town) Karachi, whereby all the applications were allowed and the appellants were directed to deliver vacant possession of the out houses to the respondent within 30 days from the date of the order.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellants have filed these six separate rent appeals.

3. In view of some conflict of opinion on the interpretation of the provisions of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the matter was referred by the learned Single Judge of this Court to the former Chief Justice for forming a larger Bench.

4. In the order referred it was pointed out that in the case of Wali Muhammad v. Mrs. Hameeda (P L D 1981 Kar. 794), it was held that the question of bona fide under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, could not be gone into by the Court.

5. On the other hand in another case namely, Syed Israr Alam v. S. M. Hussain (1983 C L C 468) it was held that the landlord's need under. section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is subject to judicial scrutiny in order to find out whether it is genuine or no‑t and the .question of bona fide requirement of the premises could be gone into. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to this Division Bench.

6. We have heard Mr. N. K. Jatoi learned counsel for the appellants and Manzoor Ahmed respondent in person.

7. Mr. N.K. Jatoi besides the aforesaid two cases also referred another decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ulfat Hameed v. Mst. Birjis Khatoon (P L D 1982 Kar 823), wherein Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J., held that the provisions of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, do not contemplate enquiry by the Controller into the genuineness or otherwise of needs expressed by the landlord under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance'. 1979. The landlord can obtain an order of eviction of his tenant if he satisfies the following conditions:‑ (1) That she is a widow, or he/she is a minor whose both parents are dead or he or she is salaried employee due to retire within six months or has retired or he or she is a person who is due to attain the age of sixty years within he next six months or has attained the age of sixty years. (2) By notice in writing inform the tenant that be or she needs the building for personal use and require him .to deliver vacant posses sion of the building within such time as may be specified in the notice, not being earlier than two months from the receipt thereof. (3) That he has not rented out the .building after he has retired or attained the age of sixty years or as the case may be, has become widow or orphan and that he is not in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality. .

8. Now, a perusal of the provisions o f sections 14 and 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, would show that in section 15 (2) (vii) of the Ordinance the Legislature has used the phrase "goodfaith" as a condition for requirement of the premises by the landlord, while it ha omitted to do so in section 14 of the Ordinance in case of requirement of the building by a widow or an orphan whose both parents are dead or salaried employee due to retire within the next six months or who has retired or a person who due to attain the age of 60 years within six months or has attained the age of 60 years. The manifest intention of the Legislature seems that the question of good faith has not to be gone into in the case of aforesaid persons if other conditions mentioned in section 14 namely, (i) that he informs the tenants that he needs the building to personal use and requires him to deliver vacant possession thereof within such time as may be specified in the notice, not earlier than two months from the receipt thereof, (ii) that be has not rented out the building after he has retired or attained the age of 60 years or as the case may be, has become widow or orphan (iii) that he is not in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality, have been complied with. In our opinion out of the aforesaid 3 conditions, two of them are also germane to the requirement of the premises in good faith for a landlord cannot be said to require a premises for his personal use in good faith if he has another building in his occupation or if he rents out the premises after it falls vacant and then he applies for eviction of another tenant on the ground of personal requirement for the phrase "good faith" means "honestly" and when a person is in occupation of another premises generally speaking he cannot be said to be acting honestly when he asks for yet another premises unless the premises in his occupation is not sufficient for his need, or he rents out the premises after becoming widow or orphan or after he retires. Besides the above two conditions the Legislature has not considered necessary to impose any other condition which also may 'be relevant while considering the question of eviction of the tenant on an application under section 14 of the Ordinance. In any case, it is well‑settled rule of, interpretation that it is not open to add to the words of the statute or to read more in the words than is meant, for that would be legislating and not interpreting a legislation. Mahesh Chandra v. Tarachand (A I R 1958 All 374.). , An interpretation which has the effect of adding certain words and clauses to an enactment should be avoided, Ram Chandra v. Thumarmal (A I R 1958 Assam 171), unless the section as it stands is meanings or of doubtful meaning British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Capt. Itbar Singh (AIR1959SC1331).

9. Lastly, we may refer to the case of Bakhsh Elahi v. Qazi Wasif Ali (1985SCMR291), wherein it was observed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan at page 297 of the report as follows :‑ . "The object of section 14, therefore, seems to be relieve this class of landlords from the rigours of an elaborate inquiry as to the good faith of their plea for requirement of the premises for personal use and to put them in possession thereof in the shortest possible time.

10. Accordingly, we hold that is a case under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the question of "good faith" or bona fides is not to be looked into, but the Controller has to see that the landlord fulfils the conditions mentioned in section 14 which we have enumerated hereinbefore. Now, the appeals will be laid before the Single Bench for disposal according to law. A. A. Reference answered.