Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 1030 of 1984, decided on 22nd November, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 14 & 21(1)‑‑Eviction of tenant by widow of original landlord on ground of personal need‑‑Widow of original landlord of disputed premises filing ejectment application against tenants after death of such landlord on ground of personal requirement under S. 14‑ Production of death certificate of original landlord clearly showing his date of death alongwith eviction application as well as with her affidavit‑in‑evidence‑‑Observations of Rent Controller that "applicant had not stated specifically as to when she became widow and that it was not known whether she became widow prior to inception of tenancy", held, were uncalled for and finding of Rent Controller clearly was of misreading of evidence on record in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 14‑‑Eviction of tenant by widow of landlord‑‑Three shops in occupation of 3 different tenants‑‑Widow of original landlord jointly sued 3 tenants by filing single ejectment application against all of them on ground of personal bona fide need‑‑Cause being one, tenants, held, could be sued jointly by filing one ejectment application against them all instead of filing three separate applications‑‑Bar envisaged by Rent Controller against filing joint application was misconceived in circumstances.

Akbar Khan Ghouri for Appellants.

Mumtaz Ellahi Shaikh for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th October, 1986.

This Rent Appeal under section 21(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is directed against the order dated 30‑9‑1984 passed by the XIVth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi whereby the eviction application filed by the appellant under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance was dismissed.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the shops bearing No. G/8, G/9, G/10 of the premises No. R.C. 2/6, Mohanlal Compound, Ranchore Lines, Karachi were owned by late Abdul Hayee Kazi who died on 9‑12‑1980 at Karachi leaving behind the above appellants as his heirs and landlords /owners of the said property and the respondents No. 1 to 3 are the tenants in respect of the said premises at monthly rent of Rs.17, Rs.20 and Rs.17 respectively. The appellants filed eviction application No. 30 of 1981 under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. It is the case of the appellant No.l that she is a widow and she required the said tenement in question for her personal use and occupation. It is admitted position that the appellants served notices dated 23‑9‑1981 upon all the respondents as required under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 calling upon them to vacate and deliver the vacant possession as the same were required for personal use. The respondents filed joint written statement and resisted the eviction application.

The appellant No. 2 filed his own affidavit in evidence for himself and as attorney of the other appellants. The appellant No. 2 stated in his affidavit that his father died on 9‑12‑1980 leaving behind the appellants as his legal heirs. The appellant No. 2 also stated therein that the appellant No. 1 is the widow and required the said tenement for her personal use. The appellant also stated that his mother is not in occupation of any building/ premises owned by her in any locality of Karachi nor she owns any building or premises anywhere in Karachi. The appellants besides filing affidavit in evidence of appellant No. 2 also filed affidavit in evidence of Syed Ali Tirmazi who fully supported the assertion of the appellants. It is an admitted position that the respondents are occupying one room each. The respondent No. 3 filed his own affidavit in evidence in rebuttal and repeated the same facts therein.

The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Rent Controller has failed to carry out his duty. I have gone through the impugned order and I find that the observation of the learned Rent Controller that "in the instant case, applicant has not stated specifically as to when she became widow. It is not known when she became widow prior to the inception of the tenancy". These observations are uncalled for. The appellant produced original death certificate issued by Karachi Metropolitan Corporation on 5‑3‑1981 as Ex. 4/B alongwith affidavit in evidence and a photostat copy thereof alongwith the eviction application. A perusal of the same shows that Abdul Hayee Kazi died on 9‑12‑1980 and the same fact was stated in para. 1 of the eviction application as well as in para. 2 of the affidavit in evidence of the appellant No. 2. In these circumstances the observations are uncalled for and the finding of the learned Controller is clearly of misreading of evidence and/or documents. The other observation of the learned Controller is that there was no law that in rent proceedings tenants can be jointly sued and the appellant can seek eviction of three tenants by one eviction application under the provision of Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. It seems that there is no bar when there is an admitted position that the respondents 1, 2 and 3 are occupying one l room each. It is an admitted position that the appellant No. 1's husband died on 9‑12‑1980 leaving behind her as one of his legal representative. The cause is one and it can be sued in one eviction application instead of filing three separate eviction applications.

By consent of both the learned counsel for the parties F.R.A. No. 1030 of 1984 is allowed in respect of tenements Nos. 8 and 10 only. As regards tenement No. 9, the eviction application is dismissed. The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises bearing No. G/8 and G/10 within six months from the date of this judgment on the condition that they will continue to deposit rent as ordered by the Controller. Under the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The above are the reasons for my short order dated 26‑10‑1986 passed on conclusion of the arguments.

H.B.T./S‑37/K Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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