Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.311 of 1985, decided on 24thMarch, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 14, 18 & 15 (2) (iii)‑‑ Ejectment for bona fide personal requirement‑‑Notice of change of ownership‑‑Non‑service of‑‑Effect on ejectment application‑‑Ejectment application filed under S. 14 on ground of personal requirement and not on ground of default in payment of rent under S. 15(2)(iii), held, would be maintainable even if notice on behalf of landlord under S. 18 for change of ownership of property in his favour was not served on tenant.

‑‑‑Ss. 14 & 21‑‑Ejectment for bona fide personal requirement‑‑Principles of natural justice, violation of‑‑Proof‑‑Proceeding before Rent Controller showed that appellant /tenant not only failed to avail of more than adequate opportunities granted to him by Rent Controller to lead evidence of his witness, but took repeated steps and made efforts to delay proceedings‑‑Appellant's plea that by not affording opportunity to place his evidence on record, principle of natural justice had been violated, held, was devoid of force in circumstances.

‑S 14‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal requirement‑‑Application for ‑‑Competency of‑‑Object of S. 14 being to provide speedy remedy to salaried person who had retired from service or was on verge of retirement to get possession of his rented property for his use‑‑Salaried person who had retired from service, held, would be equated with salaried person who had gone on leave preparatory to retirement‑ Ejectment application filed by salaried person with bona fide intention after 4 months of his going on preparatory leave, but one year prior to his actual retirement, would not be considered liable to be dismissed or ground that same had been filed prematurely.

‑‑‑Ss. 14 & 21‑‑Ejectment application, maintainability of‑‑Ejectment application under S. 14 filed within two months of service of notice, held, would not be considered liable to be dismissed on ground that same was filed before expiry of two months' period provided in that section.

Najmuddin v. Zamir Ahmed P L D 1982 Kar. 188 Barkatullah Khan v. Mirza Mohomed Hasan F.R.A. No. 912 of 1982 and A.S. Mughal v . Khurshid Azmat Ali P L D 1982 Kar. 406ref.

S. Mahmoodul Hasan for Appellant.

S. Mazhar Imam for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 12th February and 24th March, 1986.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant /tenant challenging the order dated 14‑3‑1985 passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi, allowing the application filed by the respondent /landlord under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. I have heard Mr. S. Mahmcx‑art, 1 Hassan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.Mazhar Imam, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The premises are a shop and the respondent served a notice under section 14(1) of the 1979 Ordinance upon the appellant on 22‑11‑1981 that he had retiree from Government service w.e.f. 1‑11‑1981 and that the appellant was a tenant of the shop in question and the respondent required the shop for his personal use, as he himself wanted to establish his business in the shop for his livelihood. The notice was replied by the appellant through his Advocate's letter dated 10‑1‑1982 in which relationship of landlord and tenant was denied between the parties and it was alleged that the respondent was harassing the appellant by sending such a baseless notice without having any legal title in the premises in question. The ejectment application was filed by the respondent on 2‑3‑1982 under section 14 of the Ordinance. A written statement was filed and after recording evidence of the parties and hearing the learned counsel, by the impugned order dated 14‑3‑1985, the ejectment application was allowed and the appellant was ordered to be ejected from the premises in question. In support of the present appeal, Mr S. Mahmoodul Hassan, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following three contentions:‑

(a The ejectment application had been filed prematurely and was incompetent and should have been dismissed as such. It was argued that it is now an admitted position that the respondent had retired from the Government service on 1‑11‑1982 and not on 1‑11‑1981 as wrongly asserted in the notice dated 22‑11‑1981 served by the respondent upon the appellant prior to the filing of the ejectment application.

(b) Notice under section 18 of the Ordinance had not been given and although the respondent became the owner of the premises later on, the appellant was the tenant of one Bashir Hassan and as such without service of notice under section 18 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance, the ejectment application was not maintainable.

(c) Principle of natural justice have been violated and an opportunity to place his evidence on record, which was required by law to be given to him, had not been afforded to the appellant by the Rent Controller.

3. 1 will take up the last two submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant first. There is no merit in the contention that on Account of non‑service of notice under section 18 of the Ordinance, the ejectment application under section 14 was not maintainable reference to section 18 shows that benefit of this section can be taken by a tenant in case an application for ejectment has been filed under section 15(2) (ii) of the Ordinance, that is, where the application for Aejectment is filed on account of default. Firstly, this was under section 14, and secondly, the ground was not of default. It is an admitted position that the respondent had become the owner of the property and as such the ejectment application under section 14 of the 1979 Rent Ordinance was maintainable. Any other interpretation would lead to the position that no person, who is the owner of the property, would be able to maintain an application under section 14 if the tenant had been in occupation of the premises prior to the applicant becoming the owner of the property.

4. The other submission about violation of principles of natural justice is also devoid of any force. R & P of the ejectment case is before me. I have gone through the various orders that have been passed. More than adequate opportunity had been granted by the Rent Controller to the appellant to lead the evidence of his witnesses but this was not availed of. On the contrary, perusal of the R & P shows that repeated steps were taken and efforts were made to delay the proceedings.

5. The main argument of the learned counsel for appellant was that the application under section 14 of the Ordinance was premature, as the respondent had retired on 1‑11‑1982 and not on 1‑11‑1981. The record has established that the respondent had gone on leave preparatory to retirement for one year w.e.f. 1‑11‑1981, although his actual retirement took place on 1‑11‑1982. Learned counsel for the appellant had referred to section 14(1) of the Ordinance, 1979, which provides that an application for ejectment under section 14 can be filed, inter alla, by a salaried employee, who has retired or who is due to retire within the next six months. No doubt the respondent had finally retired on 1‑11‑1982 but he had gone on leave preparatory to retirement on,1‑11‑1981. The object, inter alia, of section 14 is to provide a speedy remedy to a person, who has retired or who is on the verge of retirement, to get possession of his rented property for his use. With this being

the object of section 14, a salaried person who is retired from service is to be equated with a salaried person who has gone on leave preparatory to retirement. Then in this case the ejectment application had been filed on 2‑3‑1982, whereas it was decided as late as 14‑3‑1985 i.e. after nearly 2Jr years of respondents final retirement. This appeal is being heard in March 1986, which is about 31 years after the final] retirement of the respondent. No question was put to the respondent in cross‑examination that the respondent owns any other shop. The ejectment application has not been filed with mala fide intention. On evidence, therefore, all the other requirements of section 14 had been met. The ejectment application, therefore, was not liable to be dismissed) on the ground that it had been filed prematurely. According to the learned counsel, the ejectment application should have been filed after 1‑5‑1982 i.e. within six months of the approaching retirement but, as observed earlier, the respondent had already gone on leave preparatory to retirement and the ejectment application had been filed on 2‑3‑1982, after the respondent had gone on leave preparatory to retirement and no prejudice had been caused to appellant on account of the filing of the ejectment application on 2‑3‑1982.

Learned counsel had relied upon the case of Najmuddin v . Zamir Ahmed P L D 1982 Kar. 188 but the view taken in the judgment has not been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court and the Full Bench has held that even where an application for ejectment has been filed under section 14 of the 1979 Ordinance within two months of the service of L the notice, such ejectment application is not liable to be dismissed on the ground that it has been filed before the expiry of the two months period provided in section 14(1). The Full Bench judgment is dated 12‑12‑1985 and has been passed in F.R.A. No. 912 of 1982 Barkatullah Khan v. Mirza Mohomed Hasan.

Mr. S.Mahmoodul Hassan, learned counsel for the appellant, had also relied upon the case of A.S. Mughal v. Khurshid Azmat Ali P L D 1982 Kar. 406. This judgment is clearly distinguishable. It related to the unamended proviso to section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The unamended proviso laid down that an ejectment application under section 14 could not be filed more than six months after a landlord had attained the age of 60 years. As observed, the point involved in P L D 1982 Kar. 406 is distinct from that involved in this appeal.

I find no merit in this appeal. F.R.A. No.311 of 1985 is dismissed but with no order as to costs.

H . B . T . ‑‑‑‑ Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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