' MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, J.---Petitioner has assailed concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below in rent case No, 845/2006 filed by respondent No,1. (Muhammad Aslam, since dead) in respect of house No,A-544 North Nazimabad, Karachi on the ground of personal bona fide use under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Petitioner resisted the case on the plea that he was owner of the said premises by virtue of a sale agreement, and to lend credence to such plea, he also asserted that for finalizing the sale of said premises; he had already filed a Civil suit for declaration, cancellation, specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the respondent. The rent case, however, was decided .Against the petitioner vide order 14.03.2011 and the appeal preferred by him against the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 12.02.2014.
2. Prior to filing of the said rent case, respondent No,1 had filed rent case No,238/2004 under section 15 SRP0,1979 on the same ground through his attorney as at that time he was living in UAE Dubia.
But it was dismissed on the ground that respondent No,1 had failed to examine himself and instead his attorney had appeared and given evidence. And although learned Rent Controller dismissed the case, yet he decided the issue of relationship of tenant and landlord. Between the parties in affirmative. And whereas the appeal preferred by respondent No,1 against that order was pending, he filed the abovementioned rent case because meanwhile he had returned to Pakistan after his retirement and had started living in a rented house. He filed his affidavit in evidence and then continuously appeared in the court for almost one year for his cross-examination, but it could not be conducted for one reason or the other. He thereafter left for Afghanistan where he was offered a job but before leaving, he appointed his attorney who appeared on his behalf and whose evidence was duly recorded. And while the rent case was still pending, the respondent died in Afghanistan on 07.07.2010 and after his death, his legal heirs (now the respondents) joined the proceedings with the consent of the petitioner.
3. Indeed learned counsel for the petitioner mainly dilated upon the above facts in his arguments.
He stated that during pendency of appeal filed against the order passed on earlier rent application, the fresh case on the same, cause of action was incompetent; that after death of respondent No,1, his legal heirs could not have continued with the same proceedings filed solely for personal bona fide need by late respondent on the occasion of his retirement; that his legal heirs ought to have filed a fresh case for ejectment, if they required the premises for their use; that after getting job in Afghanistan, even the ground of retirement was not available to the late respondent to press his case on; that both the courts below had not appreciated the evidence properly. He lastly relied upon the following case laws in his support reported in 1984 CLC 755, 2000 M LD 442, 1996 M LD 71, 1992 CLC 723 and 1998 CLC 349. The stance of learned counsel for the respondent in his arguments was contrary to above.
4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the above decisions. In law, there is no bar that a landlord after failing to succeed in rent case filed on any of the grounds enumerated under section 15 WO, 1979 cannot file a fresh case under section 14 of the said law for ejectment of the tenant. The intent and scope of the two provisions of law are quite distinct and independent of each-other. They refer to different causes of action and can even be simultaneously resorted to by the landlord. Section 15 of SRPO, 1979 comprises of several grounds, the landlord can file an application on for ejectment of his tenant, whereas under section 14 SRPO, 1979 the landlord can maintain his application for ejectment only on the ground of personal use under certain circumstances which include either his attaining age of 60 years, and/or he has retired or is going to retire in 6 months; has become widow; or orphan, or is minor. The term "personal use" used in the said provisions of law has a broader meaning, which transcends connotation of the person of landlord, and includes his immediate family. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that after death of the respondent No,
1. His legal heirs had no right to sue the petitioner on the same ground is misconceived.
5. I am also not tempted to agree either with the contention of the learned counsel that after the respondent got employment in Afghanistan his case on the ground of retirement had become infructuous. Because law does not require that a landlord, in order to prove his personal bona fide need, has to sit idle and away from any activity to generate funds for himself and his family till decision his case is made. Reliance is placed on the case reported in 2010 SCM R 1925. Evidence of respondent's attorney on the ground of personal bona fide need has remained unshattered and his assertion that the respondents are living in a rented house is un-rebutted. The requirement of proof which the landlord has to establish under the law thus stands discharged. Both the courts below have exhaustively dealt with factual aspects of the case and have decided affirmatively the issue that whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. And this court admittedly under the constitutional jurisdiction cannot reappraise the evidence on the premise that a different view is possible. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere in the findings of the courts below. This petition was dismissed vide short order on 17.05.2016 along with pending applications and these are the reasons for the same. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.