RIFAT PARVEEN Versus KANIZ FATIMA

1. This appeal arises from the order of the Rent Controller, dated 24‑3‑1984 rejecting the application of appellant /landlord filed under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Rent Controller framed two issues in the case. One relating to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the other with regards to, personal and bona fide needs of landlady and her family members. On the first issue the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but on the issue of personal and bona fide requirement he concluded that the appellant failed to establish her claim for bona fide needs. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Rent Controller could not hold enquiry into the genuineness of the demand of appellant for personal and bona fide requirement .under section 14 of the Ordinance. In the case of Ulfat Hameed v. Birjis Khatoon PLD 1982 Kar. 823 I had the occasion to consider at length the scope of Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and reached the conclusion that the Rent Controller while dealing with an application under section 14 of the Ordinance has no jurisdiction to enquire into the genuineness of the demand of a landlord for bona file need. I also set out in details in that judgment the jurisdictional point alone which can properly form subject‑matter of enquiry by Rent Controller in those proceedings. I am therefore, in no doubt that the Rent Controller could not held enquiry into the genuineness of the demand of personal and bona fide need urged by the appellant in his Application under section 14 of the Ordinance of 1979. This, however, does not conclude the matter finally in so far this appeal is concerned, as the respondent in his written statement raised objection as to the maintainability of the proceedings under section 14 of the Ordinance, 1979. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant is in possession of half portion of the first floor of the same building while the respondent is occupying the ground floor in the same building. It is accordingly urged that the appellant being in occupation of a building of the same type in the area was precluded by virtue of section 14 (2) of the Ordinance from filing an application under section 14 (1) ibid. This point is neither noticed nor decided by the learned Rent Controller although it is specifically raised in paragraph 6 of the written statement. As the decision of this point may require evidence it is not desirable to decide this point in appeal. I, accordingly accept the appeal and set aside the order of Controller and send the case back to the Rent Controller to decide the same in the light of above observations and after recording evidence, if necessary. There will be no order as to costs.

2. H.B.T Order accordingly