ABDUL MALIK vs Haji EJAZ AHMAD

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--The dispute relates to the eviction of the appellant from a portion of house bearing No. 52/2-A, "B" Area, Liaquatabad which was let out as a shop in terms of the agreement of tenancy dated 11th of September, 1974.

2. Eviction was sought on the grounds of default, personal need, damage caused to the property, and lastly, its use for a purpose other than that for which it was let out.

3. The trial Court by order dated 20th of December, 1983, allowed the prayer for ejectment on the first to grounds only. And on an appeal, the High Court upheld this order only on the ground of personal need of the shop for himself and his family members while considering the plea of the respondent's need. The High Court held after referring to para 10 of the application, paragraph 19 of the affidavit of the respondent and also such material as was available on the record that the premises in his occupation was not sufficient to accommodate 9 or 10 persons of his family and that, therefore, his need was bona fide.

4. As to the legal submission raised which was also repeated here before us namely, that the premises was let out for a commercial purpose and that ejectment could not be sought on the ground that it was needed for accommodating his large family, the High Court rejected this contention on the ground that the dictum laid down in the case of Gul Afzal Khan v. Muhammad Hanif, PLD 1979 Lah. 398 and relied on the support of this proposition was not applicable as whatever was said there was with reference to the provisions of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which has since been repealed by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, whose provisions are not in pari materia with those of the repealed Ordinance. Under the repealing Ordinance the words "premises" and "building" do not make any distinction between commercial and residential use nor clause (vii) of section 15 spells out any such distinction. Here it would be pertinent to refer to it which reads: "The landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children."

5. The word "premises" means a building or land let out on rent but doe: not include a hotel.

6. Accordingly, there is a marked distinction between the provisions of the to statutes and it is not permissible to import those considerations as were available under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 while defending an action for ejectment under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Equally even if the premises were let out for a non-residential purpose, that stipulation it the agreement cannot over-ride the plain meaning of the above referred to provisions nor can it operate as an estoppel. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court is unexceptionable.

7. The petition is without substance and is dismissed. The appellant is allowed to months the to hand over vacant possession of the premises.