' This is 1st Rent Appeal of Appellant Nawab Begum directed against the order of VII Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi passed in Rent Case No, 2290/1981 on 23-8-1981, whereby the learned Rent Controller had allowed the ejectment application of the respondents which purported to have been filed under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
2. The ejectment application was filed by the 7 respondents in respect of a house bearing No, 55-X situated in Block 6, P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi. It was allowed by the respondents that this house was rented out to the appellant by their deceased father on 1-10-1971 for a period of 11 months, which period expired on 30-9-1972. The father of the applicants died in July, 1973, whereas their mother died in July, 1974. Consequently the respondents became landlords of the appellant in respect of the premises in suit.
3. They further averred in their ejectment application that respondents Nos. 1 and 4 to 7 were residing in a temporary structure belonging to their relation who has got the same vacated from them due to which they have now shifted to another house belonging to their relation Akhtar Hussain. As there is no other house to live in, hence they prayed that the premises in dispute which is in possession of the appellant, may be got vacated under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance).
4. Before filing the ejectment application the respondents had also issued a notice purporting to be under section 14 (1) of the said Ordinance to the appellant. In this notice almost the same facts were stated as contained in the ejectment application described above.
5. Notice was issued by the learned Rent Controller to the appellant, who filed written statement denying the right of the respondents to get her ejected under section 14 of the said Ordinance.
Receipt of the notice was also denied and so also maintainability of the ejectment application under section 14 of the said Ordinance.
6. Learned Rent Controller then recorded evidence of the parties which was produced in the form of affidavits. On behalf of all the respondents Muhammad Haleem Alvi (Respondent No, 1) filed his affidavit, while in rebuttal Nawab Begum appellant filed her affidavit. On the basis of the above evidence the learned Rent Controller was satisfied that respondents Nos. 6 and 7 being orphans were entitled to possession of the house under section 14 of the said Ordinance.
7. It was contended before the Rent Controller that the ejectment application was not maintainable under section 14 of the said Ordinance and that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of section 14. Both these points were decided against the appellant and consequently the ejectment application was allowed.
8. Perusal of the main ejectment application filed by the respondent does not disclose as to in what manner they are entitled to benefit of section 14 of the said Ordinance. This section is applicable to four categories of landlords namely
(i) A widow
(ii) A minor whose both parents are dead ;
(iii) A salaried employee due to retirement within the next six months or who is retired; and
(iv) A retired person who is due to attain the age of 60 years within the next 6 months or who has attained the age of 60 years.
' I have read the Petition of the respondents again and again, but failed to comprehend as to in which category the respondents fall or in what capacity they are claiming benefit of section 14 of the said Ordinance. The most surprising aspect of the case is that ejectment is being claimed under section 14 of the said Ordinance not only on behalf of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 who are minors and said to be orphans, but on behalf of all the respondents. It is not clearly stated in the body of the ejectment application even about respondents Nos. 6 an d 7 that they are minor orphans and as such they are entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the said Ordinance.
9. The next surprising thing is that even the statutory notice as contemplated under section 14 (1) of the said Ordinance, a copy of which has been produced in the lower Court's record as Exh. 4-A, does not disclose as to in what capacity the respondents claimed possession under section 14 of the said Ordinance. This notice has been given to the appellant not on behalf of the minor orphans only, but on behalf of all the respondents and they do not mention even in this notice as to how they have locus standi to file the application under section 14 of the said Ordinance.
10. It may be stated that a regular ejectment application has already been filed by the respondents in the Court of Rent Controller. Karachi which is still pending against the appellant. That application is No, 3513/78. During the pendency of that application the respondents have filed this fresh application on the ground that they have a fresh cause of action now under section 14 of the said Ordinance.
The draft of the ejectment application is a remarkable specimen of bad draftsmanship. 1 wonder if it has been drafted by an Advocate. None of the pre-requisites which entitle a landlord to claim benefit of section 14 of the said Ordinance, has been mentioned anywhere either in the petition or in the statutory notice. There is not a word anywhere in the body of the Petition that respondents Nos. 6 and 7 are minor orphans and that in this capacity they are entitled to have the appellant ejectd. It is only in the title of the ejectment application that respondents Nos. 6 and 7 have been shown as minors. But the requirements of section 14 which entitle a landlord to claim ejectment by summary procedure, have not been stated anywhere in the entire petition. The Petition was, therefore, liable to be rejected on this ground alone by the learned Rent Controller without taking any further action upon it. For all practical purposes this ejectment case appears to be one under section 15 of the said Ordinance and not under section 14. Even the learned Rent Controller did not adopt the summary procedure of section 14 in deciding this matter. Notice was duly issued to the appellant, written statement was obtained and evidence of the parties was recorded. This is not the procedure contemplated by section 14 of the said Ordinance. This section simply says that if the Rent Controller is satisfied that the landlord falls under any one of the various categories mentioned above and has no other house to live in, then he may eject the tenant in a summary way. The learned Rent Controller by recording evidence of the parties after requiring the appellant to file written statement, proceeded in the manner which is usually adopted in applications under section 15 of the said Ordinance.
13. For the above reasons I hold that the ejectment application does not disclose any cause of action whatsoever for the respondents to have the appellant ejected in a summary way under section 14 of the said Ordinance. So far as their bona fide requirement is concerned, it is already subjudice in the earlier rent application which was filed in 1978 and which is still pending before the Rent Controller. The appropriate course for the respondents will be to pursue those rent proceedings and try to get appropriate remedy through those proceedings. For the above reasons this appeal is allowed and the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller is set aside with no order as to costs.