Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.52 of 1985, decided on 21st December, 1986

‑‑‑Ss. 14 & 19‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑Procedure prescribed for disposal of rent cases not applicable to cases filed under S.14 of Ordinance XVII of 1979‑‑Effect‑‑In spite of non‑applicability of procedure to applications under S. 14 of Ordinance, XVII of 1979, Rent Controller, held, could revert to the principles of natural justice‑‑Question of fact could not be decided by Rent Controller without holding inquiry and hearing the parties.

1986 C L C 1745; P L D 1965 S C 90; 1984 C L C 2587; Azad Bin Hyder v. Adam Khan P L D 1981 Kar. 225; Mumtazuddin Ahmed v. Mst. Sultan Jehan Begum P L D 1981 Kar. 329; Ibrahim Ismail v. Brig. (Retd.) S.H.A. Gardezi P L D 1981 Kar. 622; Mst. Rifat Parveen v. Mst. Kaniz Fatima 1986 C L C 1745 and Muhammad Ahmed and others v. Mst. Sakina Begum and others1984 S C M R 881 ref.

‑‑‑Ss.14 & 21‑‑Dismissal of rent case without proper inquiry‑‑Ejectment of tenant claimed for bona fide personal requirement of landlord‑‑Ten8At filing affidavit that landlord was in occupation of other premises‑ Ejectment application dismissed summarily‑‑Effect‑‑Where Rent Controller without holding proper inquiry dismissed the rent case, High Court while accepting appeal remanded case with direction to Rent Controller to decide same afresh after holding inquiry into facts of the case.

Muhammad Rafiq Khanzada for Appellant

Saleem Karamally for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th December, 1986.

Appellant Suleman is landlord. He filed Rent Case No.234 of 1984 under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Ordinance' against the respondent. The written statement was filed on 4‑11‑1984. On the same day respondent filed another application wherein it was prayed that rent case be dismissed as the provisions of section 14 do not attract to the rent case. The appellant filed counter‑affidavit on 13‑11‑1984. The Rent Controller, by an order dated 29th November, 1984, dismissed the rent application as being not maintainable.

Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khanzada appearing for the appellant argued that Rent Controller without holding any summary enquiry erroneously dismissed the rent case of landlord. It is argued that filing of rent case on fresh grounds is no bar to invoke the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance. He has referred to the cases reported in 1984 SCMR 881 and 1986 C L C 1745 that before deciding the issue, the appellant could have been given opportunity to adduce the evidence in rebuttal.

Mr. Salim Karmally, appearing for the respondent has argued that Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the application as same documents were produced showing that appellant is in occupation of other premises, therefore, application is liable to be dismissed. He has referred to the cases reported in P L D 1981 Kar. 225 and 329, P L D 1965 S C 90 and 1984 C L C 2587.

The main grievance of appellant is that when he has taken the specific plea in his counter‑affidavit that he is not in possession of any premises in the vicinity and there is no such bar for the landlord using premises for the commercial purpose. The Rent Controller has only considered the affidavit of respondent /tenant and photostat copy of two documents. The deponents were not subjected to cross -examination. The Rent Controller has relied on the evidence of the respondent recorded on 17‑2‑1982 in another case. The copies of deposition were not furnished by the respondent. In every case the circumstances are to be considered independently. The evidence of one case cannot be considered in other case. In this case on the day, the written statement was filed the Rent Controller on another application dismissed the rent case. In section 19 of the Ordinance the procedure is prescribed for disposal of the rent cases. It is specifically mentioned that these provisions are not applicable to the cases filed under section 14 of the Ordinance but it does not debar enquiry by the Rent Controller A or right of hearing of the tenant or landlord, therefore, Courts have to revert to the law of natural justice. In so many cases this point has been considered by this Court. On this I refer a case of Azad Bin Hyder v. Adam Khan reported in P L D 1981 Kar. 225, wherein it has been held that the question of fact cannot be decided by Controller without holding inquiry and hearing the parties. In case of Mumtazuddin Ahmed v. Mst. Sultan Jehan Begum reported in P L D 1981 Kar. 329, it was held that inquiry on application under section 14 be held within the discretion of Rent Controller and appellate authority in such manner as they may deem fit but reasonable opportunity of being heard to be provided to both the parties. In a case of Ibrahim Ismail v. Brig. (Retd.) S. H. A. Gardezi reported in P L D 1981 Kar. 622 it has been held that principle of natural justice could be applied to the cases. Application under section 14 of the Ordinance or affidavit filed by the tenant does not amount to an inquiry. In a case of Mst. Rifat Parveen v. Mst. Kaniz Fatima reported in 1986 C L C 1745 it has been held that when specific plea taken regarding occupation of landlord of other premises, the Rent Controller has to decide this point on the evidence. With regard to the plea of respondent that earlier rent case was dismissed, therefore, present rent case was not competent cannot be sustained in view of case of Muhammad Ahmed and others v. Mst. Sakina Begum and others reported in 1984 S C M R 881 where it has been held that first rent case was no bar on account of previous litigations. For the reasons stated above I am of the view that Rent Controller without holding proper inquiry dismissed the rent case. I, B therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Rent Controller. The case is remanded back with the directions to decide the same in the light of above observations.

A.A. /S‑5/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.