' On 12-9-1996 the respondent filed the ejectment application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "Ordinance, 1979) for the ejectment of the petitioner from Rooms Nos.11 and 12 Second Floor, Hanifjee Building, Bellasis Street, New Challi, Karachi, on the ground of personal bona fide need and subletting of the premises by the petitioner.
The respondent claims to be the landlord and owner of the premises.
2. The petitioner contested the application. He filed written statement in which he admitted that the respondent was landlord of the property but he showed his ignorance about the respondent's being owner of the premises. The, petitioner also denied other allegations of the respondent. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the Rent Controller on the issues of personal bona fide need and subletting. The learned VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller dismissed the application on 13-9-2000. The respondent challenged the order of Rent Controller before the District Judge, Karachi South. The learned IInd Additional District Judge, Karachi South heard the appeal by which he set aside the findings of the trial Court on the ground of personal need, whereas maintained the findings of Rent Controller on the issue of subletting. Consequently, he allowed the appeal by directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within 60 days of the order dated 20-11-2004. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present petition.
3. I have heard the Advocates for the petitioner, respondent and perused the record of this case very carefully.
4. Admittedly the respondent has asserted his right of ownership on the agreement of sale, which was produced before the Rent Controller as Exh.2 and photostat copy is available on the record at page 75. Now the question arises as to whether on the basis of agreement of sale the respondent can claim the property for his personal bona fide use? Under section 15(2) of the Ordinance, 1979 it is provided that if the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children then the tenant can be ejected on proof of such requirement. The "landlord" has been defined under section 2(t) of the Ordinance, 1979 as owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorised or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises. The phrase "personal use" has been defined in section 2(g) of the Ordinance, 1979 as under:-- "Personal use" means the use of the premises by the owner thereof or his wife (or husband), son or daughter."
5. If the definitions of "landlord" and "personal use" are examined together then there will be no hesitation in holding that the requirement of the premises for personal bona fide use would be the owner's own use, or the use of his spouse or his children. Therefore, the word "landlord" used in section 2(f) of the Ordinance, 1979 is referred to owner and not to a person who is for the time being authorized to receive the rent of the premises. The above view is supported by Division Bench in a case of Muhammad Kashif Kamal Siddiqui v. Farooq Baig 1990 M LD 1009 and in the case of Muhammad Raees v. Imamuddin 1997 M LD 530 and Muhammad Naseeruddin v. Mst. Hashmat Bibi PLD 1993 Kar.
300.
6. Learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that so far no sale-deed has been executed.
Under section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, the agreement of sale does not confer any right, title or interest in the property as such the applicant is not the owner of the premises, therefore, he cannot claim the property on the ground of personal need. Hence, such ground is not available to the respondent. Consequently the impugned judgment is set aside.
7. Above are the reasons of my short order, dated 28-3-2005 by which I had allowed the petition.