1. ' This F.R.A. has been filed by the tenant of a residential premises bearing C.S.No.267 situated in Ward No. 3 Jacobabad against the order of eviction, dated 6-2-1984 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Jacobabad allowing Rent Application No. 7 of 1982.
2. ' The respondent No. 1 is a widow and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are her minor children. Her husband died on 26-5-1973. The family is residing in Karachi in rented House No.Q-75, Block 2, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi. The respondent owns the premises occupied by the appellant in Jacobabad. She also owns some agricultural lands in Jacobabad and has to stay in a hotel in Jacobabad whenever she visits Jacobabad in connection with management of the agricultural lands.
3. ' By a notice, dated 2-2-1982, the respondent requested the predecessor of appellants Ghafoor Bhai to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the respondent as she wanted to leave the rented premises in Karachi and shift to Jacobabad with her 5 minor children to live in her own house. The late Ghafoor Bhai sent a reply on 21-2-1982 refusing to vacate the premises, thus creating a cause of action for the respondent to file the ejectment application No. 7 of 1982 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, and Rent Controller, Jacobabad. She filed this application on 22-3-1982 against Ghafoor Bhai. This application was filed under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The tenant filed a written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. The learned Rent Controller framed the following points for determination.
(1) Whether this rent application is not maintainable in law ?
(2) Whether the applicant is entitled for the benefit of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 ?
4. ' While the ejectment proceedings were pending the tenant Ghafoor Bhai died and the appellants were brought on record as his L.Rs. and have been contesting the application since then.
5. ' The learned Rent Controller after examining the evidence of the parties and considering the contentions raised by their respective counsel gave a finding that the ejectment application was maintainable and also that the applicant had proved her case that she was a widow and was entitled to the relief claimed by her in the ejectment application. The application was consequently allowed by the learned Controller and the appellants were directed to hand over possession of the premises to the respondents/landlord within six months from the date of the order. Feeling aggrieved against this order the appellants have filed this appeal.
6. ' Learned counsel for the appellants, conscious of limited scope of interference in an order passed under section 14 of the Ordinance has raised a technical objection that the ejectment application was filed before the period of two months postulated in section 14 of the Ordinance had expired.
7. ' As stated earlier this notice was served on the appellants on 2-2-1982 and the ejectment application was filed on 22-3-1982. In order to appreciate the impact of the arguments reference to section 14 is necessary.
8. ' It runs as under:- "Delivery of vacant possession.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance or any other law for the time being in force, the landlord of a building who is a widow, or a minor whose both parents are dead or a salaried employee due to retire within the next six months or has retired or a person who is due to attain the age of sixty years within the next six months or has attained the age of sixty years, may by notice in writing inform the tenant that he or she needs the building for personal use and require him to deliver vacant possession of the building within such time as may be specified in the notice, not being earlier than two months from the receipt thereof: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply where the landlord has rented out the building after he has retired or attained the age of sixty years or, as the case may be has become widow or orphan.
(2) The landlord shall not be entitled to avail the benefit of subsection (1) if he is in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality.
(3) Where the tenant has failed to deliver the possession of the building under subsection (1), the Controller shall, on application by the landlord. in this behalf, order eviction of the tenant from the building in a summary manner, by using such force as may be necessary.
9. ' The notice served on the appellants was in the following terms:- "On behalf of and instructions from my clients Mst. Yasmeen Khanum widow of Shaikh Mukhtar Ahmed for self and guardian of her minor children (1) Motahir Ahmed, (2) Miss Zoya Mukhtar, (3) Mr. Mokhayar Ahmed and (4) Miss Ramisa Mukhtar, resident of House No. Q-75, Block-2, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi-29, I have to a address you as under:-
(1) That my above-named clients are the owners of the property boaring N.C.S.No. 267, Ward No. III, known as Haq General Stores, situated in Jacobabad, and you are the tenant in the said building at monthly rent of Rs.250.
(2) That my client is a widow and she has her agriculture land in Deh Muradali, Tehsil Garhi Khairo, District Jacobabad. In connection with her land she has to frequently come to Jacobabad. But she has got no house of her own except the building in your occupation. My clients has to stay in hotel and she experienced great difficulties and has also to meet the expenditure of hotel as and when she comes to Jacobabad in connection with her aforesaid land.
(3) That my chants need the building in your occupation for her own use and needs and for that of her elder child who intends to do the business in the premises on the ground floor in which you are residing is required for residential purposes of my client and her children.
(4) You are accordingly served with this notice under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and you are called upon to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the building, upon expiry of two months from the date of receipt of this notice.
(5) In case you failed to vacate the premises after the aforesaid period, my clients would be constrained to file an application for your ejectment under summary provisions contained in section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and you will be responsible for cost and consequences."
10. ' The learned counsel contends that until the period of two months had fully run its course, no proceedings could be initiated and the filing of the ejectment application on 22-3-1982 before the expiry of two months as mentioned in para. 4 of the notice is violative of the provisions of law and would render the proceedings void and the order passed in such void proceedings is a nullity in law. Such is the assessm ent of the learned counsel of section 14 of the Ordinance.
11. ' The plain reading of the section would disclose that the object for which it was enacted is two- fold. It affords a special benefit to a class of landlords who are either salaried employees attaining age of retirement or widows or orphans. The trapping of procedure which cause delay in other cases are curtailed for these classes of landlords for obvious reasons. But care has been taken to allow a breathing time of at least two months to the tenant to comply with the requisition of the statutory notice provided in the section. In my view the period of two months is correlated to the order of eviction that would be passed by the Rent Controller under section 14 (3) and not with the launching of the ejectment proceedings that may have to be filed if the tenant refuse to comply with the request contained in the notice.
12. ' The notice is intended to "inform the tenant that he or she needs the building for personal use and require him to deliver vacant possession of the building "But for such vacation the tenant must be given at least two months time. In my humble opinion the object of the notice in this section is not intended to be a condition precedent to the launching of the action for ejectment as happens to be the case in some statutes. Under old section 80, C.P.C. there was a bar to filing any suit against the Government unless a notice was not served on the Government concerned. I am prepared to go to the extent that in certain cases the filing of the ejectment application may itself be treated to be a notice of desirability of the landlord occupy the premises. In such cases the ejectment application must be entertained for adjudication but no order for eviction would be passed against the tenant before the expiry of at least two months from the date of service of the filing of the proceedings on the tenant and the writ of ejectment. This may appear to be an extreme view but I see no difficulty in interpreting the section in the above terms for the object of serving a notice is to buy time for the convenience of the tenant and not to bless the ejectment proceedings with a ributal in the shape of a notice which I may again repeat is not a condition precedent for filing an action but merely as "INFORMATION" to the tenant.
13. ' My brother Ajmal Mian, J. in an exhaustive judgment reported in PLD 1981 Kar. 794 after surveying the case-law has expressed the following view at page 797 "The spirit of section 14 seems to be that a tenant is to be provided 2 months period prior to ordering of ejectment summarily under the above provision".
14. ' The learned Judge proceeds to supplement his findings:- " In the instant case the notice, dated 30-1-1980 under section 14 was served in or about first week of February, 1980, whereas the ejectment order was passed on 19-4-1981 i.e. after the expiry of more than one year. Since the rent case was filed on 2-3-1980, the Rent Controller could not have passed an ejectment order immediately on receipt of the application for ejectment, as the two months' period had not expired by then. However, during the pendency of the rent application the cause of action mutured as admittedly on the date of the passing of the ejectment order, more than one year had expired from the date of service of the notice and from the date of filing of the ejectment case."
15. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on 6 case reported in 1982 CLC 318 where another learned Judge had to examine the validity of a notice under section 14 of the Ordinance and was persuaded to hold that if the language of the notice is defective the order passed by the Rent Controller should itself suffer from informity. As this judgment also exhaustively deals with the point involved I would in all fairness to the learned counsel for the appellant quote it in extenso. At page 158, in para. 38 of the report the learned Judge held:- "Now, I take up the second ground. In relation to this ground it is urged that under section 14 of the Ordinance a landlord having the qualification prescribed by section 14 of the Ordinance is required to give to his tenant a notice of minimum two months to vacate the premises. In this case, it is submitted, that notice served by the respondent on each of the appellants was that he should vacate the premises within two months, which notice it is contended, is therefore, not according to law and consequently invalid. The contention has substance for under section 14 of the Ordinance as right has been conferred on certain classes or landlords to apply for summary eviction of tenants on fulfilment of certain conditions. It is, therefore, necessary that those conditions must be strictly complied with, for under this provision, the necessity of proving requirement of the premises in good faith which is the necessary condition of section 15 of the Ordinance, has been done away with. Reliance is placed by Mr. Iqbal Qazi on a Supreme Court decision in Birendra Mohan Das v.Aminuddin Malik represented by 3 others 1970 SCMR 304 wherein Sajjad Ahmad Jan, J. at page 30 of the report observed that "when action is taken under a special statute, it must fulfil the conditions of that statute to gain validity". This principle will, in my opinion, also apply with equal force when an action is taken under special provisions of Statute. In further support, Mr. Iqbal Qazi referred to the following passages from Craies on Statute Law, 1971 Edition, page 266 which reads as follows: "(vi) Statutes giving jurisdiction to Courts are usually absolute.
16. ' As a general rule, statutes which enable persons to take legal proceedings under certain specified circumstances must be accurately obeyed notwithstanding the fact their provisions may be expressed in merely affirmative language."
17. ' Reliance is also placed upon Mangilal v. Sugan Chand AIR 1965 SC 101. In this case notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, served by the landlord, which purported to determine the tenancy, was held to be bad for it fell short of the period of 15 days specified in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, by one day. In the present case also notice served required delivery of possession within two months and not on the expiry of two months. The same, is therefore, could not have ordered eviction of the appellants."
18. 'Extending full respect to the learned Judge and quite conscious of the weight of authority the judgment carries, I do not feel persuaded to subscribe to the view that a right conferred on a widow, orphan or an old employee should be brushed aside if the language of a notice is faulty although the object for which the notice is intended has been C adequately fulfilled. It is difficult to hold that the entire proceedings should be treated to be a nullity and the order passed long after 2 months should be quashed because the notice was not in a particular form.
19. ' No other point was argued. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs. The order of the learned Rent Controller is main tained. The appellant should hand over the premises to the respondent by or before 30th September, 1984 failing which the writ for possession should be issued by the Rent Controller according to law.