Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.1078 of 1982, decided on 2nd April,1984.

‑‑‑Ss.14 b 15‑‑Scope of Ss. 14 815‑‑Section s, held, afford separate cause: of action to landlord‑‑Filing of application under one section‑‑No bar to filing of application under other section.

Hafeezuddin v. Muhammad Suleman P L D 1981 Kar.50, Haji Muhammad shag v. Amir Muhammad Khan P L D 1981 Kar.498 and A. Ghani Danwala v. Ahmed Ibrahim Ameen P L D 1982 Kar. 935 ref.

‑‑‑S.14‑‑Eviction‑‑Rent Controller staying proceedings in rent case en ground that another rent application by landlord in respect of same premises pending before another Rent Controller‑‑Held, there was no provision in Ordinance by which Rent Controller could stay proceedings circumstances.

‑‑‑ Principles must be read as part of every statute being dealt in proceedings.

Hassan Jaffar for Appellant.

M.Salim Iqbal for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11th March,1984.

This Rent appeal is against the order, dated 14th October,1982, of VIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller whereby he has ordered that Rent Case No.4600/1982 be stayed till the decision of another Rent Case No.4592/78.

2. The brief facts of case are that on 210th October,1981, appellant filed an application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance) in respect of shop, on the ground floor of the premises on the ground of personal bona fide need in good‑faith.

3. The Rent Controller proceeded with the Rent Case No. 4600/81. The evidence was adduced before him by the parties. He after hearing the arguments, came to the conclusion that appellant had earlier filed Rent Application (R.C. No.4592/78) against the respondent on the point of default which is pending before another Rent Controller, therefore, there is likelihood of conflict in the judgments between two Courts. He has stayed this rent case till decision of Rent Case No.4592/78.

4. Mr.Hussain Jaffar learned counsel for the appellant contended that rent case was, filed by the appellant in 1978 on the ground of default of payment of ret. The appellant has now retired from service, therefore, filed separate rent case under section 14 of the Ordinance, therefore, this Rent Case is independent one.

5. Mr.Saleem Iqbal Advocate for the respondent has submitted that appellant cannot file two rent cases. He has also contended that the order of the Rent Controller is not final order, therefore, it is not appealable. He has cited case of Hafeezuddin v. Muhammad Suleman P L D 1981 Kar.50. The facts of the above‑reported case are different as point of jurisdiction was involved in this case and finally Rent Controller was directed to dispose of the Rent Case on merits.

6. In this case the respondent in his written statement also mentioned that application is not maintainable in law as Rent Case No.4592/78 on the same cause of action is pending but in spite of that Rent Controller recorded the evidence of both the parties and by way of judgment he has stayed the proceedings. In fact he had completed the entire rent case and disposed it by judgment. The Sind Rented Premises Ordinance was promulgated on 14th November,1979 and it is first time that widow, orphans and salaried employees due to retire or due to attain age of sixty years have been allowed to avail of benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance, therefore, new cause of action accrues to the persons concerning in that category. The appellant can therefore, file separate application under section 14 even if previous case is pending.

7. The judgment of the Rent Controller by staying the proceedings sine die is arbitrary and contrary to law, therefore, in my view it is appealable. The reliance can be placed on a case Haji Muhammad Ishaq v. Amir Mohammad Khan P L D. 1981 Kar. 498, it has also been a in a case. A.Ghani Danwala v. Ahmed Ibrahim Ameen P L D 1982 Kar.935, that sections 14 and 15 give separate causes of action to landlord and filing of application under one section no bar to filing of application under another section. The landlord is therefore, not debarred from filing application under section 14 of the Ordinance. Both the rent cases are independent and should be decided separately on evidence and merits. The Rent Controller has acted without jurisdiction as such his judgment is contrary to law.

8. There is no provision in 4the Ordinance by which he had ,could stay the proceedings. It is now settled law that principles of natural justice is a condition which must be read as part of every statute dealing in the proceeding.

The order of the Rent Controller dated 14^th October,1982, is set aside. He directed to decide the rent case according to law on merits and evidence.

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.