Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 283 of 1981, decided on 8th August, 1983.

------S. 14‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑Landlord filing application under S. 13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance for ejectment of tenant on grounds of default and personal requirement‑Rent Controller, during pendency of proceedings, permitting landlord to file certificate showing his retirement from service and converting case under S. 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, without any application by landlord and granting ejectment‑Held, it was true that proceedings under S. 14 were summary in nature but that did not mean that tenant was completely debarred from filing any reply or leading any evidence ‑ Rent Controller, held further, had erred in assuming jurisdiction under S. 14 where no such case was pleaded by landlord‑Order of retirement was produced as a piece of evidence which could establish landlord's bona fide requirement of premises for his use‑..Proper opportunity should have been afforded to tenant to meet case under S. 14, Surd Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, in circumstances, if at all same was treated as such.

Ahmed Yusuf Ali Rizvi for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 8th August, 1983.

The respondent had filed ejectment application against the appellant in 1975. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties. However, the appellate Court rejected this contention and no appeal has been filed against that order. Thereafter the Controller fixed the tentative rent. An appeal was filed against that order and rent was fixed at Rs. 1.50 p.m. It may be noted that the ejectment application was originally filed under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 in respect of the disputed premises. The grounds for ejectment were that the appellant has failed to pay rent and the premises is bona fide required for personal use of the respondent. During the pendency of the case an application was filed by the respondent before the Controller for permission to file a certificate dated 30th April, 1980 issued by his employer. In the certificate it was stated that on the expiry of L. P. R. the respondent would retire from the service w. e. f. 12‑4‑1981. The learned Controller issued a notice for 14‑10‑1980 and by an order dated 2‑2‑1981 the application was granted. The effect of this order was that the respondent was permitted to file this certificate. It seems that the appellant was given chance to lead evidence but no evidence was produced by her. On 6‑4‑1981 her application for production of evidence was dismissed as none was present and her side was closed. On 26‑4‑1981 the appellant filed another application for reopening the side. A notice was issued for 4‑5‑1981 and on that date the learned Controller accepted the respondent's contention that after admission of the certificate of retirement this case can be converted into a case under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. On this assumption the learned Controller granted ejectment under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.

Mr. Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that mere production of a certificate by the respondent was not sufficient to convert the proceedings under section 14 and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, that evidence had been led on the issues which had been framed on the basis of the pleadings, the learned Controller had no jurisdiction to grant ejectment under section 14 without making any proper inquiry in that regard. The respondent, who has appeared in person, in reply stated that he had filed an application stating that he has retired from service, therefore, ejectment should be granted under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.

It is pertinent to note that in the application filed by the respondent seeking permission to file the certificate there was no prayer that ejectment A should be granted under section 14. It is true that under section 14 the proceedings are summary in nature, but it does mean that the tenant is completely debarred from fling any reply or leading any evidence. This point is now well settled by several authorities of our Court. The Controller has clearly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 14 when no such case was pleaded by the respondent. The order of retirement was produced as a piece of evidence which could establish that the respondent bona fide requires the premises. It is clear that the Controller has not applied his mind to the issues framed by him and has chosen to pass a summary order under section 14 in a manner which is not warranted by law. There was no case under section 14 and if at all it was treated as such, which in the facts and circumstances of the case could not have been done, then proper opportunity should have been afforded to the appellant to meet such a case.

The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Controller is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Controller with direction to dispose of the matter on merits upto 31st of October, 1983. Record and proceedings should be sent immediately to the Controller and the parties are directed to appear before him on 31st August, 1983. No further notice shall be issued to the parties.

M. B. A. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.