' The appellant, a Government servant, was going to retire from Government service on 1st January,1982 on attaining age of superannuation i,e, 60 years. He gave a notice dated 30th November,1980 to the respondent/ tenant intimating him that he was the owner of the shop in question and that he was a Government servant and he was going to retire in future and the shop in question was required for his personal bona fide use, as the appellant had decided to run his own business in the said shop after his retirement. The respondent was called upon to vacate and hand over the possession of the shop to the appellant as soon as possible. Thereafter a second notice dated 21st December,1981 was given to the respondent in which it was mentioned that the appellant was attaining the age of 60 years on 1st January,1982 and was going to retire with effect from the said date and after repeating what was mentioned in his previous notice, the respondent was asked to hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the appellant "within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this notice "No reply was given to these notices and in the circum-stances Rent Case No,1024 of 1982 was filed by the appellant under section 14 of the 1979 Sind Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 seeking an order of ejectment of the respondent. The ejectment application was opposed by the respondent. The learned Rent Controller, by his order dated 6th October, 1982, dismissed the ejectment application on the ground that no valid and legal notice under section 14(1) of the 1979 Rent Ordinance had been given by the appellant to the respondent. The reasoning of the learned Rent Controller was that the notice, dated 21st December, 1981 required the respondent to vacate the premises "within" two months whereas the provision of section 14(1) of the Ordinance requires clear two months notice to the tenant. I have heard Mr.Hatif Khudai Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Sanaullah Qamar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In my view, the learned Rent Controller was wrong in holding that the appellant could not file the ejectment application competently as valid two months clear notice had not been given by the appellant to the respondent before instituting the ejectment application under section 14. Although the notice dated 21st December, 1981 required the respondent to vacate the premises within a period of two months, apart from observing that this is too technical objection, in this matter the ejectment application had been filed on 4th March,1982, that is, much after the expiry of two months from the date of the receipt of the notice dated 21st December,1981 by the respondent. The purpose of giving notice under S.14(1) by the landlord to the tenant is to give the tenant the time of at least two months to comply with the requirement of vacating the premises. In this case the first notice had been given on 30th November,1980 and the second notice had been given on 21st December,1981 and the ejectment application had been filed on 4th March,1982. Much more than two months' time had been made available by the appellant to the respondent. In my view, the ejectment application filed by the appellant on 4th March,1982 was competent and could not have been dismissed on the ground of invalidity of the notice. It may be added that there is no invalidity in the notice either.
3. In so far as question of retirement of and attaining of 60 years ago by the appellant is concerned, it may be observed that this fact is established from the document of the Government, dated 7th December,1981, which shows that the appellant was going to retire on 1st January,1982 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. The learned counsel for the respondent had attempted to argue that no case had been made out by the appellant for proving his bona fides. I find no merit in this argument. The appellant has very clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that he requires the shop in question for carrying on business after his retirement and there was no cross-examination of the 'appellant on this point. In his evidence also the respondent did not make out any case of male fides against the appellant. The assertion made by the appellant that he did not own any other commercial building or the premises apart from the shop in question, has not been controverted in the evidence.
4. The result is that this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 5th October,1982 of the Rent Controller Karachi is set aside and ejectment of respondent is ordered. There will be no order as to costs.
5. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent is allowed time till 30th April,1984 to vacate the premises subject to the payment/deposit of rent by the respondent. It is further ordered that in Case the premises are not vacated by 30th'April,1984, the appellant will be entitled to file an execution application, wherein a writ of possession will be. Issued without notice to the respondent.