Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
First Rent Appeal No.60 of 1986, decided on 17th May, 1987.
---S.14--Ejectment on ground of having attained age of sixty years and retirement from business--Requirements--No requirement, exist that person applying for ejectment under S.14 on attaining age of 60 years should have been in Government service nor there was any requirement of bona fide--Case remanded to Rent Controller for decision afresh in accordance with law.
Abdul Sattar Pingar for Appellant.
S. Khizar Asker Zaidi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th May, 1987.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 13-1-1986 passed by the learned V11Ith Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent Case No.3082 of 1984, dismissing the present appellant's application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which was filed by the present appellant on the ground that he had attained the age of 60 years and he had retired from the business. The learned Rent Controller declined the above application on the ground that as the appellant was not a Government servant and had not retired from the service, section 14 could not have been pressed into service and, secondly, for the reason that the appellant has been putting up in a posh locality, namely, Defence Society, and, therefore, his application was not bona fide as he would not like to live in Nanakwara area which is an old city quarters. Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have noticed that the learned Rent Controller has misinterpreted section 14 of the Ordinance, in as much as there is no requirement that the person applying for ejectment under the above section on attaining age of 60 years should have been in Government service. Similarly there is no requirement of the bona fide. The latter question has been dealt with in a number of judgments of this Court by Single Judges.
However, there seems to be confusion as to the number of tenements. In the rent application the appellant has given rooms Nos.38 and 39 whereas in the affidavit he has stated Flats Nos.38 and 39. According to the learned counsel for the appellant each flat has two rooms.
3. I allow the appeal and set aside the order but remand the case to the learned Rent Controller with the direction to ascertain whether these two flats are independent tenements or they are one. If they are two independent tenements, he will decide the question whether under section 14 the appellant can apply for more than one tenement. If the above two flats are one tenement the Rent Controller will order the ejectment. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs in the above terms.
H.B.T./B-46/K Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer