Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 517 of 1981, decided on 5th November, 1981. .

Ss. 2(g) & 14‑Eviction‑Premises required for appellant's husband , retired from government service‑Appellant not one of persons men tioned specifically in section 14‑Application held, not maintainable Definition of expression "personal use"‑Does not confer any right to file application under S. 14 on a person not otherwise entitled to file such application.‑[Interpretation of statutes].

Abdur Rashid Mirza for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 15th November, 1981.

This is a First Rent Appeal filed by the appellant/landlady against the order dated 28‑7‑1981 of the Rent Controller dismissing the Rent Application No. 252/80 filed by the appellant against the respondent/tenant under section 14 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance. The appellant is the owner of a house in K. D. A. Scheme No. 1, Karachi, comprising 2 units and the respondent is the tenant of the appellant in respect of one unit of the said premises. The appellant's husband, a Government servant, retired from Government service on 25‑3‑1980. The appellant had served a notice dated 17‑12‑1979 under section 14 of the Ordinance upon the respondent requesting him to vacate the premises as the same were required by the appellant for the personal bona fide use and for her husband who was a salaried person and retiring from Government service with effect from 25‑3‑1980. The Rent Application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller by his impugned order dated 8‑7‑1981 on the ground that the Rent Application itself was not maintainable under section 14 of the 1973 Rent Ordinance.

Learned counsel for the appellant has urged before me that the said Rent Application filed by the appellant/landlady was maintainable under section and the impugned order is liable to reversal. To appreciate the argument raised by the learned counsel, section 14 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance is reproduced here :‑

"Section 14‑Delivery of vacant possession.‑(1) Notwithstanding any thing contained in this Ordinance or any other law for the time being in force, the landlord of a building who is a widow, or a minor whose both parents are dead or a salaried employee due to retire within the next six months or has retired or a person who is due to attain the age of sixty years within the next six months or has attained the age of sixty years, may, by notice in writing inform the tenant that he or she needs the building for personal use and require him to deliver vacant possession of the building within such time as may be specified in the notice not‑being earlier than two months from the receipt thereof ,: ,

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.

(2) The landlord shall not be entitled to avail the benefit of sub section (1) if he is in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality.

(3) Where the tenant has failed to deliver the possession of the building under subsection (1), the Controller shall, on application by the landlord in this behalf, order eviction of the tenant from the building in a summary manner by using such force as may be necessary."

A perusal of the provisions of section 14 shows that an applicant in a Rent Application under section 14 has to be landlord of a building, who is (1) a widow ; or (2) a minor whose both parents are dead ; or

(3) a salaried employee due to retire within the next 6 months, or has retired ; or

(4) a person who is due to attain the age of 60 years within next 6 months, or has attained the age of 60 years.

Admittedly, the appellant/landlady does not fall within any of the aforesaid categories mentioned in section 14. However, it was contented by learned counsel for the appellant that in section 14, the words "personal use" have been used and these words have not been used in section 15 (viii) of the Rent Ordinance and on account of the definition in section 2 (g) of "personal use", a person who may not fall within any of the 4 categories mentioned in section 14 but is the wife or husband or child of such a person, will be

competent to file an application under section 14 of the Rent Ordinance. The contention is misconceived. In my view, the provisions of section 1 are clear and there is no ambiguity about the same. The application can only be filed under section 14 of one of such persons who is mentioned specifically in that section and as the appellant does not admittedly fall within any such category, the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable. The definition of the word "personal use" does not confer any person with the right to file an application under section 14 who is otherwise not entitled to file such an application.

In the circumstances,"‑ this First Rent Appeal has no force and it is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed: