Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeals Nos.32, 33, 34 and 35 of 1984, decided on 16th July, 1987.

---S.14 [as amended]--Limitation--No limitation is prescribed for filing application under S.14.--[Limitation].

---S.14--West Pakistan General Clauses Act (VI of 1956), S.26 Notice to tenants under S.14, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979--Mode of service although not specified, service by Registered Post could be adopted and service by post deemed to have been effected as provided under S.26 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956- Production of postal receipt and acknowledgment receipt enough to show that notice had been served--Examination of postman not necessary.

P L D 1986 Kar. 309; P L D 1982 Kar. 406; 1983 C L C 723 and 1983 C L C 308 ref.

---S.14--Bona fides of the need of landlord in seeking eviction of tenant under S.14 are not required to be examined.

P L D 1986 Kar. 407; P L D 1982 Kar. 406; F.R.As. 620/85, 625/85; F.R.A.No.444/85; F.R.A.No.445/85 and 1986 C L C 684; 1986 CCLC 684 and 1986 C L C 681 ref.

Mst.Baroba v. Manzoor Ahmed P L D 1986 Kar. 407 rel.

---S.14--Landlord seeking eviction under S.14 of four tenants in occupation of four different tenements in the same building--Held: Each tenement being independent unit was a building and S.14aoes not envisage seeking possession by landlord of more than one building; hence he could in the case seek eviction of tenant from any one of the four tenements (irrespective of whether the tenement is a shop or residential tenement)--Four ejectment petitions under S.14 against four different tenants were simultaneously filed, heard together, dismissed by Rent Controller by one order and four first appeals from order filed by the landlord also were heard together by the High Court--Option, in circumstance, was given to landlord to indicate which one of four tenements be wanted to be vacated but landlord declined to indicate his choice and stated that the Court might pass any order it deemed fit--High Court in circumstance, accepted first appeal, from order in respect of one tenement and dismissed the other three first appeals from order as being not sustainable in law.

F.R.A. No.444/84 and F.R.A. No.445/84 (unreported) ref.

K.M.Nadeem for Appellant.

Muhammad Ali Jan for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 31st March; 2nd, 8th, 15th and 26th April, 1987.

The appellant in all the four appeals, namely--Ali Akbar Shah is owner/landlord of a building No.2/190-A, P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi. The respondents K.A. Farooqui, Faseehuddin Siddiqui, Zahid Bashir and Dr.A.H.Rizvi are his tenants in different tenements in the same building. He filed against them separate Rent Cases Nos.3171/82, 3172/82, 3173/82 and 3174/82, under the provisions of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance", for their eviction from the respective premises on the ground that he had retired from Government service and had also attained age of 60 years and he needed all the premises for rehabilitating himself and his family members there: The respondents resisted the rent cases on several grounds. They alleged mala fides behind the ejectment cases. They raised the plea that the appellant had not served on them notice under section 14 of the Ordinance. They contended that the appellant was seeking possession of the tenements for his personal use as well as for the use and occupation of his sons and daughters but he could not seek relief of possession of the rented premises under section 14 of the Ordinance for the benefit of his sons and daughters. They next contended that the appellant had retired from service in the year 1975 and he has already filed ejectment cases against them under the provisions of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 in the year 1979 on the same ground of his bona fide need and those cases were pending and he could not avail of the relief of eviction of the tenants under section 14 of the Ordinance. They advanced the plea that the appellant had built up his own house in Islamabad and he was living there alongwith his family and one of his sons and of his daughters were settled outside the country and he did not bona fidely need all the four tenements for settling himself and his family members. They alleged that the eviction cases were filed against them as they did not succumbed his pressure for increasing rent from Rs.400 to Rs.600. The appellant filed his own affidavit in evidence supported by some documents. The respondents also filed affidavit in the respective cases against them. The learned Controller /Second Senior Civil Judge Karachi dismissed all the four rent cases by consolidated order dated 1-12-1983, holding that the appellant/landlord could not maintain the rent cases under section 14 of the Ordinance for want of notice required to be given under section 14 of the Ordinance and also that he did not bona fidely need the rented premises for his own use and that of his family members. The appellant has preferred these appeals against that order.

The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that it is not disputed that the appellant has retired from Government service and also attained age of 60 years and he is, therefore, qualified to obtain possession of the rented premises under the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance. He has next urged that the appellant had served on them by post the requisite notice under section 14 of the Ordinance and he has made reference to section 27 of the General Clauses Act and placed reliance on the cases reported in P L D 1972 ( ) and PLD 1986 Kar. 309. He has advanced alternate arguments that even if service of notice was not proved, the rent cases were filed in August, 1982 and they were decided in December, 1982 i.e. after about four months and therefore the requirement of service of two months notice stood complied with in cases relied upon by the other side 'viz. PLD 1982 Kar. 406 and 1983 C L C 723 stand superseded. Of course, he could not give citation of the Full Bench case relied upon by him. He was further urged that the expression of "personal use" employed in section 14 of the Ordinance stands defined in clause (g) of section 2 of the Ordinance and it includes the need of the children and therefore the view adopted by the learned Controller that need of the children is not admissible under section 14 of the Ordinance is erroneous. He has also urged that the learned Controller could not go into the question of bona fide of the personal need of the appellant /landlord seeking eviction under section 14 of the Ordinance in the light of decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case cited as P L D 1986 Kar. 407. According to him, the appellant was entitled to the relief of getting possession of the rented premises under section 14 of the Ordinance.

The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the rented premises are residential and commercial type and the appellant had withdrawn one of the ejectment cases No.3655/79 and therefore his advancing need of personal use stood shaken. He has further contended that section 14 does not envisage relief of eviction for the need of the children. He has relied upon the cases reported in P L D 1982 Kar. 406. He has further contended that requisite notice under section 14 of the Ordinance was not served upon the respondents and no Postman was examined to prove service of notices. He has relied upon a case cited as 1983 C L C 308. He has also contended that the appellant does not need all the tenements and he has made reference to unreported cases of this Court viz. F.R.A. 620/85, 625/85 decided on 27-8-1986; and two other unreported cases being F.R.A. No.444/85 and F.R.A. No.445/85 decided on 1-9-1985. According to him, the need of the landlord for seeking eviction of the tenant would be examined even in the rent case filed under section 14 of the Ordinance. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a case reported in 1986 C L C 684. Finally, he has argued that the landlord- is entitled, at the most, to get possession of only one tenement and he has made reference to Civil Petitions in the Supreme Court No. K-400 and K-401 of 1985 filed against F. R. A.No.444/84 and F.R.A. No.445/84 decided in this Court.'

The appellant was, undisputedly, in Government service and had retired much before the rent cases, the appeals have arisen from, were filed. He filed a Certificate dated 4-3-1981 issued by Joint Secretary (Admn), Finance Division, Government of Pakistan to the effect that he had retired from the post of Joint Secretary to the Federal Government on 9-7-1975 and he was re-employed in different posts and he finally relinquished the charge of Government service on 15th July, 1978. He also filed a photostat copy of his Matriculation Certificate showing that he had attained the age of 60 years in July, 1977. Accordingly, he has come in the category of the persons who could seek relief of eviction of the tenant from the rented premises u/s 14 of the Ordinance. He filed the rent cases under section 14 of the Ordinance in August, 1982. The relief under section 14 of the Ordinance became available to specified category of landlords when the Ordinance was promulgated on 14th November, 1979. But the appellant could not avail it of as the relief was available to only those landlords who had come in that category within six months but it became available to him after the time limits of six months was omitted from section 14 of the Ordinance under Sind Rented Premises (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 promulgated on 1st September 1980 (Sind Ordinance No.XII of 1980). He had already filed ejectment cases in the year 1979 under the then existing law viz. Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which did not contain such provision' as contained in section of the Ordinance. In the circumstances, the appellant does not seem to have foregone the relief which had become admissible to him under section 14 of the Ordinance from 1st September, 1980. Moreover, there is no time limit now for filing eviction application under section 14 of the Ordinance.

As regards service of notice under section 14 of the Ordinance agitated by the respondents, the appellant did place on record copies of notices despatched to the respondents by Registered Post in August, 1981. He also filed Postal receipts and Acknowledgment receipts. Of course, the Postman was not examined. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to section 27 of the General Clauses Act and relied upon a case cited as P L D 1972 S C 09. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act of, 1897 provides that where any Act or Regulations authorises or requires any document to be served by Post, whether the expression "service" or of the expression "given" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service affected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by Registered Post, a letter containing the documents, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been effected at the time on which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course. Herein, the proceedings have been taken under a Provincial Act, namely, the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and therefore the provisions of the West Pakistan (Sind) General Clauses Act, 1956 will apply and section 26 thereof contains the same provision as contained in section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 14 of the Ordinance provides that the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant thereunder may inform the tenant by notice in writing that he/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. Mode of service of notice is not specified but it may be understood that no mode other than that of service of notice by Registered Post could be adopted by the landlord and this was done by the appellant and service of the notice by post is deemed to have been effected on the respondents as provided under section 26 of the West Pakistan (Sind) General Clauses Act, 1956. Of course, the case relied upon by the learned counsel, referred to above, seems to be a misquotation as no question of service of notice by post was considered in that case. However, the ground of non-service of the notice cannot be sustained as discussed above.

Next is the question of bona fide need of the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant under section 14 of the Ordinance. There were different decisions on this point, including that reported in 1986 CLC 681 but that question stands decided by a Division Bench of this Court in a case Mst. Baroba versus Manzoor Ahmed reported in P L D 1986 Kar. 407, wherein it was held that bona fides of the need of the landlord in seeking eviction of the tenant under section 14 of the Ordinance are not required to be examined. This objection therefore does not hold ground.

Lastly, the question for consideration is whether the appellant would be entitled to seek possession of all the four tenements. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that all the four tenements are part and parcel of the Bungalow and they are deemed to constitute a "building" as defined in clause (a) of section 2 of the Ordinance and the appellant can seek possession of all of them under section 14 of the Ordinance. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the tenements let out to the respondents are independent premises and appellant can, at the most, obtain possession of one of them in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Petitions No.400-K and 401-K of 1985 decided on 22-1-1986. The term "building" defined in clause (a) of section 2 oft the Ordinance means any building or part thereof together with all fittings and fixtures therein, if any, and includes any garden, garage, outhouse and open space attached or appurtenant thereto. This definition of term "building" bears out that the reference to the term "building" employees in section 14 has reference also to a part of a building. Since each of the tenements let out to the respondent is independent unit, each of them constitutes a "building", within the definition of the term contained in clause (a) of section 2 of the Ordinance. Section 14 of the Ordinance provides that a landlord of the class envisaged thereunder can seek eviction of the tenant from such building under the circumstances and in the manner visualized therein. It does not envisage seeking possession by the landlord of that class of more than one buildings as defined in clause (a) of section 2 of the Ordinance. It follows that the appellant could seek eviction of any one of the tenements under section 14 of the Ordinance. It was held by the Supreme Court in Civil Petitions No.400-K and 401-K of 1985, decided on 22-1-1986, that the landlord was not entitled to more than one shop premises under the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance. Of course, it was held so in respect of shops, whereas in this case there is the question of residential tenements but that fact does not make any difference as a shop or a tenements fall within the definition of the term building defined in clause (a) of section 2 of the Ordinance. The appellant would therefore be entitled to seek relief of possession under section 14 of the Ordinance of only one of the tenements. The appellant's counsel was asked if the appellant would give his option for getting possession of one of the four tenements but he declined to indicate his option stating that the court may pass any order as deemed proper. Since all the four rent cases were instituted simultaneously and they were disposed of by one order and the appeals have been heard together, the appellant would be entitled to possession of the tenement in respect of which the rent case was registered first and it would be Rent Case No.317/82 which is in appeal in F.R.A. No.32/84 against the respondent K.A.Farooqui; while the other appeals do not succeed for the reasons recorded above. Accordingly, the Appeal No.32/84 arising from the Rent Case No.317 of 1982 is allowed, the impugned order of the learned Controller is set aside, and the respondent K . A . Farooqi is directed to hand over to the appellant within three months vacant possession of the tenement in his occupation: while the impugned order is maintained in respect of Rent Cases Nos.3172/82, 3173/82 and 3174/82, and the Appeals Nos.33/84, 34/84 and 35/84 arising therefrom are dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances mentioned above, the parties shall bear their own costs.

K.B.A./A.-124/K Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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