JAMILA LATEEF Versus SALIM AHMAD KHAN

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J. ‑‑Petitioner who is a widow applied under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for summary eviction of the respondent from the demised premises which originally constituted 4 shops but were converted into one shop. Petitioner asserted that she has two minor sons and five daughters and after the death of her husband, except for herself, there was none else to look after the family for earning a source of livelihood and she needed the demised premises to start business of children's readymade garments.

Respondent raised several pleas in defence which were however rejected by the Rent Controller, Karachi who dealt with the case, and he by the order, dated 3‑10‑1982, directed respondent's eviction from the demised premises.

3. On appeal by respondent, the learned Judge of Sind High Court, however took the view which may be reproduced hereunder:

"Mr. Z. U.Ahmed on the other hand contended that since the shop was now only one therefore, the respondent was entitled to claim the whole of the shop. I consider the submission of the appellant's counsel in this respect to be weighty. The learned Rent Controller should have gone into the question as to what was the actual need of the widow respondent but he had not done so. Even the respondent in her affidavit has not given any reason as to why she needs the big shop premises which were originally four shops but has been allowed to be converted into one shop of 46 feet into 20 feet. In fact this aspect of the case has not received proper consideration.

46 feet into 20 feet is fairly a huge show room and would require an investment on a very large scale if the whole premises, was used as a children's garments show room. One cannot' lose sight of the fact that originally there were four show rooms and therefore, the need of the respondent should have been determined after taking into consideration the previous state of affairs as well, which were four shops and her need of a show room for children's garments business, which could be satisfied by making available to her an area equal to previous two shops. After giving some thought to this matter I had come to the conclusion after hearing of the appeal that the present premises should be bifurcated from the middle and a wall should be constructed in the middle at the cost of the appellant so as to make it into two shops of 23 feet into 20 feet each. A show room of 23 feet into 20 feet is a fairly big show room and can meet the needs of the respondent who wants to make a living for her children and herself while the other half of 23 feet into 20 feet could still be left for the appellant who could continue his business, on a modest scale and thus the widow and her children can sustain themselves and the appellant can also continue to carry on the business and thus complete dislocation could be avoided and a fair and equitable arrangement found.

I have considered such an arrangement to be just, fair and equitable and I had therefore, made a short order on 17‑4‑1984 in this appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed in part and accepted to the extent that the appellant will vacate half portion of the shop comprising 23 feet into 20 feet and he will do so within four months and he will raise a wall at his own cost in the middle of the present premises. The rent of the half portion would be Rs.450 per month but the appellant will continue to pay rent at the rate of Rs.900 per month till he vacates the half portion."

Mr. Z.U. Ahmad, learned counsel appearing in support of his petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court submits that section 14 of the Ordinance is a self‑contained provision applicable to the classes of landlords mentioned therein and the consideration of fairness, justness and equitableness is not contemplated as to the landlord's claim of the need of premises, if it is, otherwise, within the four‑corners of that provision of law. In this behalf, learned counsel submitted that "bona fides", or "good faith" is not a relevant consideration for adjudication of cases of landlords under section 14 of the Ordinance. For this proposition, learned counsel relied upon the rule laid down by this Court in Bakhsh Elahi v. Qazi Wasif Ali, 1985 S C M R 291.

4. The points raised by the learned counsel deserve examination. We, therefore, grant leave and allow the petition. Security Rs.2,000.

5. The appeal to be heard on the present record. It is, however, open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.

M .I . /J‑18/ S Leave granted.