MUHAMMAD ALI AHMAD KHAN vs Messrs TAUFIQ ENGINEERING WORKS
The appellant landlord filed an ejectment application under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking the eviction of the respondents from three inter-connected shops on the ground of personal and his children's requirement following his retirement from Government service. The Rent Controller held the landlord entitled to only one shop and gave the respondents the option to choose which shop to vacate. Both parties filed appeals. The core legal question was whether a landlord invoking section 14 can claim more than one premises at the same time and whether the tenancy of inter-connected shops can be bifurcated. The Sindh High Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the landlord's requirement under section 14 must be restricted to one premises to prevent abuse, and the Rent Controller was justified in granting ejectment for one shop while leaving the option of which shop to vacate to the tenant to protect their business. The key principle laid down is that summary ejectment under section 14 is limited to a single premises, and where multiple interconnected shops are let under a single tenancy, the court may restrict eviction to one shop with the option of selection given to the tenant.
- Whether a landlord within the purview of section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is entitled to file an ejectment application in respect of more than one premises at the same time?
- Whether the bona fides of a landlord are required to be proved in the same manner under section 14 as in a case under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Whether the Rent Controller can bifurcate inter-connected shops held under a single tenancy and grant ejectment in respect of only one shop?
- Section 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 15, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
1. ' The appellant in F.R.A. 437/89 being the landlord filed an application under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for ejectment of the respondents. It was pleaded that the respondents are tenants in respect of three inter-connected shops and as the appellant has retired from Government service he requires them for his own personal use and for the use and occupation of his children. The respondents denied the claim. The learned Controller by the impugned order held that the appellant is entitled to one shop out of three shops but the option was given to the respondents to choose which shops they would like to retain and which shop they would vacate. The appellant has challenged this order in Appeal No,437/89. The respondents have also filed Appeal FRA 452/89 challenging the order. This judgment will dispose of both the appeals.
2. ' Mr. Sadiq, the learned counsel for the landlord contended that the respondents are tenants in respect of three shops on a monthly rent of Rs,210 and as there is one tenancy the learned Controller could not have bifurcated them into three and given an option to the tenant. According to Mr. Rashid Akhtar Qureshi the landlord has failed to prove his bona fide requirement and that his two sons are in Government service while the third one is a student and the appellant landlord himself is a sick man, having retired from a Government job he having no experience of any business of any nature. It is now well-settled that in an application under section 14 bona fides of the landlord are not required to be proved in the same manner as in a case under section 15. The fact that a person has retired and requires the premises for his personal need is by itself treated to be a bona fide claim in good faith.
3. ' The main question for consideration is whether a landlord within the purview of section 14 is entitled to file ejectment application in respect of one or more than one premises at the same time. In my view in cases which fall under section 14 the requirement and need should be restricted to one premises. If it is extended to more than one premises then it is likely to create serious complications and dishonest claims may be pressed taking benefit of the summary procedure of section 14. In the present case it is an admitted position that respondent is a tenant in respect of three interconnected shops. This is what has been stated in the application. Therefore there are three shops which have been let out to one person. Mr. Sadiq contended that there is only one tenancy. It seems to be one tenancy because three shops have been rented to one person. So far premises are concerned they are three, and tenancy is always created in respect of building and premises. Therefore, in my view the order of the Controller is justified in granting ejectment in respect of one shop.
4. ' Mr. Sadiq contended that the option should be left to the appellant. In such circumstances if the option is left to the landlord it may be disastrous to the tenant and may ruin his entire business.
5. Therefore, considering the facts, convenience and the nature of business, the Controller was justified in holding that the option was left to the tenant-respondents. The appellant case is covered by section 14 and his claim for eviction in respect of one shop is legal and proper. Both the appeals are dismissed. The tenant shall vacate the premises within 60 days from today. Mr. Qureshi has stated that the tenants namely Taufiq Engineering Works shall vacate the shop which is adjacent to Dr. Firdous's clinic. In case they do not vacate within a period of 60 days writ of ejectment shall be issued without notice. /order accordingly.
Cited by 6 cases
- Mirza ABID BEG Versus Mrs. ZARINA SHAMS 2003 YLR 2893
- M/s. KHAN MEDICAL STORE vs Mst. MUSARRAT 1998 MLD 641
- ALLAH RAKHA vs Mst. MUSSARRAT 1999 CLC 1786
- SULEMAN vs Mst. DUR BIBI 1997 MLD 2254
- Mst. FAHMIDA BEGUM vs THE ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN 1993 MLD 1219
- HAZRAT SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF 1992 MLD 910