1. ' This order will govern disposal of above-noted two F. R. As. Filed by the same landlord against two separate orders of Rent Controller rejecting his eviction applications against the respondents who are occupying two adjoining shops in the same building. The applicant filed the two ejectment cases under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground that he has retired from service and is over sixty years of age and he needed both the shops to run book and stationery shop. The following allegations were made in para. 4 of the application :- "4. The applicant is a literary person and has been inherited with thousands of valuable books and ancient and noble literatures by his forefathers who were dealing in such vocation. The applicant is also determined to do his forefathers' business of book-selling and stationery under the name and style of "Antiques Book Dealers, Innovators and Stationers". The applicant is father prepared to start the institution of typing and shorthand as he has got vast experience therein. The said business requires accommodation of at least two shops in the beginning."
2. ' The applications were resisted by the respondents on several grounds including the ground of non-maintainability of these cases. The Rent Controller after hearing the parties held that the application was maintainable and provisions of section 14 were applicable to appellant but rejected the claim of appellant holding that it was not bona fide. To quote the reasoning of Controller, it was held as follows :- "I, therefore, hold that the applicant after his retirement was competent to invoke the provisions of section 14 of Ordinance but under the circumstances of this case he is not in a position to avail of its benefit on account of pending litigation between the parties under section 15 of the Ordinance and also on the ground that previously he has sought ejectment of other tenants on the ground of his personal need of this very nature."
3. ' It is quite clear from the order of Rent Controller that he rejected the applications of appellant as he was not satisfied with regard to the bona fide nature of his claim. He also found that pendency of ejectment cases under section 15 of the Ordinance against tenants debarred the appellant to press his claim against the respondents under section 14 ibid. The following, facts are not in dispute. The respondents in both the cases were tenants in the shops long before the appellant retired from his job and attained the age of 60 years. The appellant who retired on 3-3-1979 served notices on the respondents on 21-3-1982 and filed the cases in November, 1982. It is also an admitted position that during the pendency of above cases the appellant succeeded in getting vacant possession of entire first floor of the building occupied by a tenant through Court. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the decisions in the case of Abdul Majid v. Mst. Naimun Nisa Beg= (1) and Ulfat Hameed v. Mst. Birjis Khatoon (2) the Rent Controller was not competent to hold enquiry into the bona fides of the appellant and should have granted the applications after having found that the appellant was a retired Government servant and had attained 60 years of age and has neither Jet out nor is in occupation of any shop premises after retirement and attaining the age of 60 years. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are not without force. The stops of section 14 of the Ordinance was considered in details by me in the case of Ulfat Hameed and after analysing its provisions I reached the following conclusion :- "After reading the above provisions of law I am in no doubt that no enquiry as to the genuineness or bona fides of the requirement urged by a landlord can be gone into in proceedings under section 14 of the Ordinance. The enquiry under this section must confine to such facts which are necessary to give jurisdiction to Rent Controller to proceed under this section, such as the person applying under this section is a widow, is a salaried employee due to retire within six months, is a minor whose both parents are dead, is a person who is due to attain the age of 60 within next six months or has already attained the age of 60 and lastly that a notice calling upon the tenant to vacate the premises within two months of the receipt of the notice has been served. The scope of inquiry under this section will also include if it is so alleged by the tenant, the determination by the Controller whether the landlord after having attained the age of 60 years or become a widow or after having retired had rented out the building in respect of which the application was filed under section 14 of the Ordinance, or is in occupation of a similar building owned by him or her in any other locality. As soon as these facts are determined by the Controller in favour of the landlord, he is bound to make an order for eviction against the tenant and no further enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the need of the landlord can be made by him."
4. In the same case I also held that in order to defeat the claim of landlord under section 14 it must be shown that he is in occupation of another building of the same class which is owned by him. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to persuade me to depart from the view I expressed in Ulfat Hameed's case and I am also informed that the petition for leave to appeal again the above judgment has since been dismissed by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the cases of Israr Alam v. S. M. Hussain (3) and Wahid Shah v. Haider Mirza (4) in support of their contention that the bona fides of applicant under section 14 could be enquired by the Controller. No doubt these
(1) PLD 1982 SC 118 (2) PLD 1982 Kar. 823
(3) 1983 CLC 468 (4) PLD 1983 Kar. 628 ' cases do support their contention to some extent and specially in the case of Syed Israr Alam the learned Chief Justice in fact examined the bona fides of the needs of landlord and having come to a positive conclusion that the need was not genuine dismissed the appeal of the landlord but with utmost respect to the learned Judges who decided the above cases I still hold the view I expressed in the case of Ulfat Homed. Both Mr. A. R. Mirza and Abdul Karim Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the respondents raised the following further contentions before me :-
(1) That the landlord during the pendency of cases against their respective clients obtained possession of first floor of the same building which could be conveniently utilised for the purpose of business by the applicant and therefore, Rent Controller rightly refused the applications.
(2) That in the applications for eviction, the appellant/landlord had pleaded personal and bona fide requirement both for himself as well as for his sons and, therefore, the applications under section 14 were incompetent in law.
(3) That in view of earlier proceedings filed by the landlord for eviction of tenants under section 15 of the Ordinance the Rent Controller rightly refused the applications under section 14.
(4) After bearing the learned counsel for the parties at length I do not find any force in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is not disputed before me that the appellant had retired at the age of 60 years on 3-3-1979 and therefore, he could file proceeding under section 14 of the Ordinance for eviction of the tenant after B service of notice as required under section 14(i), thereof. Although an attempt was made in the cross-examination of the applicant to show that he had obtained possession of first floor premises from a tenant during the pendency of the two rent cases but there is nothing on the record to show that the premises on the first floor are shops or could be utilized as shops. The fact that the tenant of first floor premises used to run coaching classe in the premises is not enough to defeat the claim of applicant for the two shops on the ground floor. Apart from it no specific suggestion was given to the appellant in cross-examination that the first floor of the building got vacated by him could be used as shop. In so far the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the application as originally filed related to the personal and bona fide requirement of both applicant and his son is C concerned, there is a specific order of the Rent Controller dated 10-34984 on file whereby appellant was allowed to drop the prayer regarding bona fide need of his son and confined the application to his own requirement. Last contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that since' cases under section 15 of the Ordinance were already filed, the Controller D rightly refused to grant application under section 14. In the case of Abdul' Ghani Dhanwala v. Ahmad Ilmuddin Ameer (1), a learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that filing of application under section 15 or pendency thereof is no bar on the right of a landlord to file application under section 14 of the Ordinance. This case is followed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Wahid Shah v. Haider Mirza. I am in respectful agreement with the above view in establishing before the Rent Controller that on the date he instituted the)
(5) (1) PLD 1982 Kar. 935 In view of the above discussion I find that the appellant has succeeded application he was 60 years of age and had retired from service and that he was not in possession of any other similar "premises" in the same locality nor he rented out any such premises to any tenant. I accordingly accept both the appeals, grant the applications under section 14 for eviction of respondents.
5. However, in view of the fact that in Civil Petition No, K-307/82 Supreme Court has granted leave to consider the point whether Rent Controller could enquire into the genuineness of the needs of landlord in proceedings under section 14 of the Ordinance 1 allow two months' time to the "respondents" to obtain proper order in this regard if they so desire, from the Supreme Court. In case the respondents fail to produce any appropriate order from the Supreme Court in this regard within the aforesaid period they will be evicted from the premises in accordance with the law.
6. There will be no order as to costs.