MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J.--- This order shall dispose of the above mentioned three constitutional petitions, involving the same question of law. The petitions assail three eviction orders passed by 1st Rent Controller, Karachi-South on 31-7-2004 in three rent' cases (i,e, Rent Cases Nos.637 of 2002, 638 of 2002 and 640 of 2002) and the decisions pronounced by the Appellate Authority/Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi-South on 30-8-2005 in F.R.As. (i,e, F.R.As.
Nos.114 2004, 115 of 2004 and 116 of 2004).
2. The three petitioners are tenants separately in respect of Shop No,3, Godown No,1, Godown No,3 respectively constructed on the ground floor of the building called as Saleem Center, built on Plot No,MR-7/25, Ram Bharti Street Market Quarters, Jodia Bazar, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as "the shop and Godowns" or "the rented premises"). Respondent No,3 Ghulam Qadir Abbasi Kalhoro (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord") and 6 others have shares in the building i,e, Saleem Center. After retiring from the post of Excise and Taxation Officer on 1-3-2002 the respondent No,3 filed separate rent cases number whereof are mentioned above, in the Court of Rent Controller, Karachi-South for ejectment of Messrs Akbari Stores (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner" or "the tenant") under section 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, pleading therein that he wants to start business of restaurant on the entire ground floor of the building. Together with those three rent cases respondent No,3 also filed one other rent case bearing No,639 of 2002 against Yousuf Ghani, the tenant in respect of Godown No,2. the tenants contested the case by filing their written statement. They pleaded that the respondent No,3 was only co-sharer in the shop and godowns, therefore, he had no legal right and authority to get all those premises vacated in exercise of his right under section 14, S.R.P.O., 1979.
3. After recording the evidence in the rent cases, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioners/tenants on 31-7-2004. F.R.As. filed by the petitioner were also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 30-8-2005. Those decisions have been assailed through present petitioners.
4. However, the eviction order passed against Yousuf Ghani, the tenant in respect of Godown No,2, was executed finally and the possession of that godown delivered to the respondent No,3 the landlord.
5. Mr. Iftikhar Javed Qazi, Advocate appearing for the petitioners argued that the respondent No,3 has only share in the building i,e, Saleem Center and as such he is sharer in the shop and godowns in respect whereof he filed separate four rent cases against the tenants. According to the learned Advocate although the shop and godowns were joint property and the respondent No,3 could not claim his exclusive right upon them, but if he could exercise his right under section 14, S.R.P.O., 1979 then also that could be granted in respect of the premises under one tenancy and not in respect of the shop and godowns with four different tenants under different tenancies.
6. Mr. Iftikhar Javed Qazi, further contended that since the respondent No,3 had admittedly got the possession of Godown No,2 from tenant, Yousuf Ghani, in the result of Rent Case No,639 of 2002, he cannot be awarded the possession of the shop and godowns in possession of petitioners under other three separate tenancies. In support of his contention he referred to the cases of Razia Khatoon reported in 1991 SCM R 840 and Shaikh Muhammad Khalid reported in 1992 CLC 2307.
7 .Replying the above contention Mr. K.B. Bhutto, Advocate appearing for respondent No,3 argued That the right conferred upon the landlord under section 14, S.R.P.O., 1979 was not limited and confined to one tenancy alone. It was a right for getting possession of a building, which means entire building or parts thereof. He referred to the definition of building under section 2(a), S.R.P.O., 1979. In continuity he contended that the principal consideration is the requirement of the landlord.
If his requirement is to the extent of a shop in one tenancy then possession of only that shop is to be given to him, but when his requirement can only be satisfied by giving him possession of the parts of the building involving more than one tenancies, he is entitled to get all those premises. In support of this contention, he referred to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in cases of Muhammad v. Dilawar Khan Durrani and Dilawar Khan Durrani v. Muhammad (Civil Appeals Nos.112-K and 113-K of 1987) and the case of Bakar v. Mst. Khatoon Hajin Kala alias Kala Begum C.P.L.A. No,266-K of 1987 and case of Mst. Khurshid Azmat Ali v. A.S. Mughal and Ayub Sultan, Civil Appeals Nos.9-K and 10-K of 1982.
8. Undisputedly the respondent No,3, has joint share in the shop and godowns involving the tenancies in the building. It is not clear how much accommodation of the construction on the ground floor he can get in his share. Although the facts and the circumstances of the case are different but if it is accepted that the respondent No,3 being co-owner of the shop and godowns is to be recognized as landlord with right to file a rent case yet it is to be decided as to what extent his right under section 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 be accepted and enforced. By now it is settled that section 14, S.R.P.O., 1979 does not envisage seeking possession by landlord of more than one building. It is also settled that he can seek possession of a building involving one tenancy.
The building as defined under section 2(a), S.R.P.O., 1979 means a building or parts thereof.
Therefore, if the parts of the building are with different tenants under separate tenancies then each part has to be treated as building under section 14, S.R.P.O., 1979. In the present case, every shop and godown are with the respective tenants under separate and individual tenancies. Thus, the respondent No,3 could only get the premises involving one tenancy. Since he has admittedly got godown No,2 in recognition of his right under section 14, S.R.P.O., 1979, he is not entitled to get the possession of the shop and godowns with the petitioners, even if he pleads that his requirement will not be satisfied fully. The principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Razia Khatoon and followed by this Court in the case of Shaikh Muhammad Khalid (supra), can be referred to in support of the view. The decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases referred to by Mr. K.B. Bhutto, Advocate for respondent No,3, were all dealt with and distinguished by the Honourable Court at apex while laying down the principle in the case of Razia Khatoon, (supra).
Thus, those cases are not helpful to the respondent No,3.
9. This matter has another aspect also. The ground floor i,e, the shop and the godowns are jointly owned by respondent No,3 with six others obviously the possession of the entire floor, if awarded, would not be only for his benefit but mainly for the benefit of his co-sharers, therefore, it is not to be awarded being not in conformity with the scheme of section 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. However, on this point the position would have been different if the co-shares were spouse and children of respondent No,3.
10. In the light of the above, the ejectment orders, assailed through these petitions are hereby declared illegal. Consequently the rent cases filed by the respondent No,3 against the petitioners are dismissed. With this order the petitions are accepted, at Katcha Peshi stage, with no order as to costs.