' By a short order dated 18th July, 1982 this appeal was dismissed with cost for reasons to be recorded later. Following are the reasons and the facts relating to this appeal :-
2. The respondent is owner of a building bearing No, 121-.1, Block No, 2, P. E. C. H. S., Karachi in which the appellant was inducted as tenant of the ground floor at Rs, 1,000 per month vide tenancy agreement dated 25th October, 1977. In July, 1980 one more room in the same building was added to the rented premises and the rent was enhanced to Rs, 1,200 per month.. The respondent had been serving in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, his last posting being as Ilnd Secretary in the Embassy of Pakistan in Ankara (Turkey). He was ordered to be retired from service after expiry of 365 days L. P. R. Commencing from 15th December, 1980. The actual date of retirement was 15th December, 1981. It is alleged on behalf of the respondent that he had no other accctamodation at Karachi except the one rented out to the appellant, hence a notice was issued to him as required by section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, whereby the appellant was required to vacate the premises by 31st August, 1981. This notice, it is alleged, was duly served on the appellant on 17th June, 1981, but in spite of this he did not vacate it. The respondent, therefore, filed ejectment application in the Court of Ilnd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi. After recording the evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application and directed the appellant to vacate the premises within 60 days. Hence this appeal by the appellant under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance).
3. The case of the appellant before the learned Rent Controller was that statutory notice was not served upon him as required by section 14 of the said Ordinance, that the building in question consists of three floors, out of which the hind floor is in possession of the respondent's relations, while the 1st floor is already on rent with another tenant at Rs, 1,500 per month. It is, therefore, alleged that the respondent can live in the hind floor with his relations or he can get the Ist floor vacated from his another tenant.
4. The appellant further stated in his written statement that while proceeding to Ankara, the respondent had assured him that the appellant not be evicted from the premises in question for three-four years even after his retirement, as he had no intention to settle at Karachi. Upon this assurance of the respondent, the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs, 17,000 on fly proofing, emulsion paint, replacement of entire wiring, repair of sanitary fitting of the premises in dispute and an additional sum of Rs: 20,000 was also spent by the 'appellant in getting a telephone installed in a room which is separable and independent from the rest of the premises. He, therefore, alleges that the ejectment application, has been filed by the respondent in violation of his solemn undertaking, given to the appellant, due to which the appellant had incurred heavy expenditure on the maintenance and improvement of the premises. It is, therefore, alleged that the respondent, is estopped from evicting the appellant from the premises.
5. In support of the ejectment application, the respondent filed his affidavit alongwith notification pertaining to his retirement, the acknowledgment due receipt of the notice and the lease deed. He has also filed an affidavit of one Shamim-ur-Rehman, a relation of the respondent, which is to the effect that presently the respondent is living with him because he has no other house except the building the ground floor of which has been rented out to the appellant and the other two floors are also occupied. The respondent had also produced postman Zamir Ali to prove that the notice which was sent with `acknowledgement due receipt' to the appellant Riazul Hassan was duly served on him. He has identified the signature of the appellant on the A. D. Receipt, and the Postal Receipt. The date on the A. D. Receipt below the purported signature of the appellant is 17th June, 1981.
6. The appellant has, is rebuttal, filed affidavits of Chowdhry Mian Nisar, Muhammad Siddique and himself. His evidence relates mainly to the alleged undertaking of the respondent that he shall not get the premises vacated from the appellant for three-four years and that on account of this undertaking, the appellant was persuaded to incur heavy expenditure on maintaining and improving the premises in question.
7. The first question that would arise for determination, in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the said Ordinance. He has produced notification alongwith the affidavits which conclusively proves that the respondent was due to retire on 15th December, 1981. The present ejectment application was filed on 8th September, 1981. Thus, according to section 14 of the said Ordinance, the respondent was entitled to invoke the provisions of the said section within 6 months of his retirement i. e. Within 6 months of 15th December, 1981. It has not been denied that the respondent fell B within the category of landlords to whom section 14 of the said Ordinance applies.
8. The main contention of the appellant is that the statutory notice of two months, as required by section 14 of the said Ordinance was not served upon him. He has denied his signature on the A. D.
Receipt and the Postal Receipt produced by the respondent. However, the A. D. Receipt would show that the appellant's name and address were properly written there on, hence the presumption shall be that in the normal course it was duly served upon the appellant. Moreover the. Postman Zamir Ali has also been examined by the respondent who has given sworn testimony to the effect that he had delivered the registered envelop to the appellant himself and obtain his signatures on the A. D.
Receipt and the Postal Receipt. In view of this evidence the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the statutory notice was duly served upon the appellant/opponent.
9. However, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that even if the notice in question was not personally served on the respondent, it would not be fatal to his case. In support of this view he has relied on a decision of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Wali Muhammad v.
Hameeda. It was held in this case in respect of the notice mentioned in section 14 of the said Ordinance, that the purpose the of was to afford two months' time to the tenant to vacate the premises, hence the spirit of the law shall be deemed to have been substantially complied with, if two months' time is allowed to the tenantprior to his ordering the ejectment and that enforcement of technicalities of actual service of notice should not be allowed to frustrate the object of section 14 which was to provide expeditious summary remedy to the landlords who were widow, orphan, retired or retiring employees etc. Hence in view of the above decision, with which I am in respectful agreement the objection of the appellant regarding non-service of notice is not sustainable.
10. The other plea of the appellant is that there are two more floors in the same building which are easily available to the respondent. It is, however, not denied by the appellant that the Ist floor is already rented out to a tenant while the Ilnd floor which is an improvised one, is occupied by the brother of the respondent and is not sufficient for his accommodation. The respondent has also stated categorically in his affidavit that he is a patient of high blood pressure and that only ground floor is suitable for his personal residence. The objection of the appellant. That the other floors of the building are available to the respondent, has no substance and must be repelled.
11. The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent had also given him an undertaking that he shall not be evicted for 3-4 years from the premises in question and that upon this undertaking he has incurred about Rs, 17,000 on the improvement of premises and Rs, 20,000 on installation of the telephone. There is nothing on the record to show that the appellant had obtained permission of the respondent to incur all this expenditure. The question of estoppel against the landlord does not arise in the circumstances.
12. It is not denied that the respondent is presently residing with his relations. This fact has been amply proved by the evidence of Shamim-ur-Rehman, who has stated in his affidavit that the respondent is presently living with him in his house which is already occupied by 11 members of his own family and as such the respondent is in bona fide need of the ground floor of his building which has been rented out to the appellant.
' For the above reasons I hold that the ejectment application of the respondent was rightly granted by the learned Rent Controller under n section 14 of the said Ordinance. Consequently this appeal is dismissed with cost. The appellant is, however, granted two months' time to vacate the premises. PLD 1981 Kar. 794