MAHMOOD A. KHAN, J.---This petition has been filed in respect of concurrent findings, passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as learned appellate Court in R.A No.03 of 2010 and F.R.A. No.121 of 2010 respectively, wherein the eviction application of the respondent No.1 filed under section 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to S.R.P.O.) was allowed and the same was also upheld at the appellate stage.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rent proceedings in this matter was lodged under Section 14 of S.R.P.O, which is privileged section. It is further contended that it is established by case law that under this specially privileges provision only one tenancy is available whereas the present eviction application required three (03) tenancies. It is further contended that compromise was entered into between the two other tenants with the respondent No.1 whereby the possession was acquired and where such possession had been acquired the availability of personal need for the petitioners premises cannot subsist as not available especially where the restriction of one premises is available in the statute itself. While concluding his arguments he has placed reliance upon case laws reported as Sabir Ali v. Zahoor Ahmed Khan (1988 MLD 31), Sh. Muhammad Khalid v. Fakhruddin (1992 CLC 2307), Mst. Razia Khatoon through L.Rs. v. Dr. Roshan H. Nanji and another (1991 SCMR 840), Bakhsh Elahi v. Qazi Wasif Ali (1985 SCMR 291) and Messrs Akbari Stores and others v.
Additional District Judge Karachi South and others (2006 CLC 1196).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, has failed to show despite specific calling in this regard that the requirement by way of consolidation i.e. "multiple tenancies/units united into one can" being restricted under section 14 of S.R.P.O. for personal need and such a case was ever restricted being the distinguishable element between this case and the relief upon authorities. Learned counsel however, further contended that after acquiring the possession in this matter, the landlady has handed over the possession to someone else and this effect bailiff report is present on record.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 however, contends that the alleged compromise between the other tenants in the matter was to acquire possession after a period of 18 months which period was reasonable enough for the landlady to entertain. However, this compromise was not sufficient to the requirement and ultimately the premises after acquiring the possession from present petitioner was used as a clinic by amalgamation for which it was acquired for a period of 11 months whereafter on account of sudden death of the husband of the daughter of landlady who was using the same, it could not be continued. It is further contended that the requirement as described in the eviction application in para No.11 was for a total of 16 square yards and for acquiring possession the privileged section was utilized to which the landlady qualified as there is no restriction under the said law.
5. Having heard the learned counsel and gone through the record. This petition on account of the earlier order irrespective to the possession having already' acquired was heard on merits. The Rent Controller as well as Appellate Court had exercised their powers as provided under the law. The petitioner in the matter was heard, evidence was got concluded and orders in accordance with jurisdiction had been passed. It is not available that a constitution petition is to be treated as another appeal by re-appraisement of evidence and no element has been shown whereby the fundamental rights of the petitioner were found to have been jeopardized.
6. As to the restriction of Section 14 of S.R.P.O. the same is restricted to tenancies where the same are distinguishable and are separated and not in a case where the requirement of the landlord or the landlady (as the case may be) is dependant 'on the satisfaction otherwise as such an interpretation defeats the very purpose of the special enactment. In the present matter from the record and proceedings it is clear that no disturbance to the element of personal need in this respect is present, as such, the said restriction cannot be imposed. The purpose of Section 14 of S.R.P.O, is provided to cater for the special category of landlord by a convenient mechanism to acquire possession. In the present circumstances, this petition is found not tenable and stands dismissed. The petitioner may however, approach the concerned Rent Controller in case he is aggrieved of any right of repossession under Section 15(a) provided under S,R.P.O in respect of which though arguments had been advanced but cannot be entertained in this petition.
7. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.