1. ' This First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1971 (hereinafter referred as Ordinance) has been filed against the order, dated 28th March, 1982 at XI Rent Controller Karachi whereby he dismissed the rent case of appellant.
2. ' The facts of the case are that the appellant is landlady of House No, A-336, Block No, 1, North Nazimabad, Karachi, whereas respondent is her tenant on first floor of the house at a monthly rent of Rs, 400. The appellant filed ejectment application under section 14 of the Ordinance, in which she stated that she is in possession of ground floor consisting three rooms and necessary attachment and she having five dependent children, needs more accommodation, therefore, her prayer is that the respondent be ejected from the premises. Appellant gave notice on 7th July, 1981 to the respondent as required by the law but in spite of that respondent failed to vacate the premises, therefore, she filed Rent application. The respondent denied the allegation and has challenged the maintainability of the application under section 14 of the Ordinance. He contended that appellant is in occupation of the building in the same locality, therefore, her application under section 14 is not competent.
3. ' It is admitted fact that appellant is residing on ground floor of the same premises. It is now to be seen whether she can avail of the benefit of summary eviction as provided under subsection (1) of section 14 of the Ordinance. The landlady under subsection (2) shall not be entitled to avail the benefit of subsection (1) of section 14, if she is in occupation of a Building owned by her in any locality. The definition of building is given in section 2 (a) of the Ordinance which reads as under :- "(a) "building" means any building or part, thereof, together with all fittings and fixtures therein, if any, and includes any garden, garage, outhouse and open space attached or apartment thereto."
4. ' Mr. Munir Alvi learned Advocate for appellant has relied upon the cases reported in PLD 1981 SC 118, 1983 CLC 1304 and 1983 CLC 3237. All these cases referred to are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In my opinion the ground floor occupied by the appellant/ landlady comes under the purview of definition of "Building" as contemplated in subsection (2) of section 14 of the Ordinance.
5. ' Mr. Akhtar Ali Mehmood has submitted that premises consists of 2 independent units, therefore, her application under section 14 is not maintainable. He has cited PLD 1983 Kar. 410, 1983 CLC 3066. The fact of the cases referred are in consisting with the present case.
6. ' The learned Rent Controller held that rent application under section 14 of the Ordinance is not maintainable. In his order he has made observations that appellant has chosen wrong forum because by Virtue of section 14 (2). She is derived from availing of the benefits of section 14 (1), which can only be invoked in special circumstance. The Rent Controller has not given his findings on issue No, 2, because according to him this application itself is not maintainable.
7. ' In the present case the appellant sought vacant possession of first floor of house in question which is under occupation of respondent/tenant. Both the floors are being used for residential purposes. The authorities relied upon mostly pertain to Residential-cum-Commercial purposes, therefore, I do not like to discuss the above case law.
8. A plaint reading of the above provision of law will show that a landlady will be disentitled to apply under section 14 of the Ordinance only if it is shown that he or she is in occupation of another building owned by her in locality.
9. In my opinion the ground floor of the respondent premises which is under occupation comes under the definition of "Building" as contemplated in subsection (2) of section 14 of the Ordinance, therefore, Rent application is not competent. The order of Rent Controller dismissing the Rent Application of appellant is maintained. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. ' From the order of the Rent Controller it appears that her Rent Case under section 15 of the Ordinance is pending. This order shall have no effect on the decision of that case which is to be decided independently on merits and according to law.