1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sind- Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the appellant/landlady against the order of Rent Controller, dated 15-8-1984, rejecting her application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- ' The respondent is in possession of two shops in the same building where the appellant is residing with her family. It is an admitted position that originally at there were three shops in the said building constructed on the ground floor. It is also admitted position that out of the three shops the appellant was able to secure possession of one shop on the ground floor and she was in possession of the same at the time she instituted rent proceedings under section 14 of the Ordinance of 1979. In the notice which was served by the appellant immediately before filing of the application upon the respondent at it is alleged that the two shops in occupation of the respondent were required by the appellant for commercial purposes. In the written statement filed before the Rent Controller one of the defences raised by the respondent was that the appellant being in possession of one of the shops was disentitled to invoke the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance. The appellant in support of her case examined her husband/attorney who in his evidence stated that the applicant was not in possession of any shop in the building and the shop which is referred by the respondent in his written statement is being used for residential purpose.
2. There is, however, no date mentioned in the affidavit as to the conversion of the said shop into a residential premises. It is admitted by the attorney/husband of the appellant in his cross- examination that the shop has iron shutters.. He was asked in cross-examination that he was occupying shop No,1 where plastic work was being run previously but he denied the suggestion. He, however, admitted that shop No,1 is in his occupation and is being used for residential purposes.
3. Even in cross-examination no attempt was made by the appellant's attorney to give the date of alleged conversion of the shop for residential purposes. In his own evidence the respondent categorically stated that the appellant was in possession of shop No,1 in the building and in cross- examination he denied the suggestion that the said shop is being used as residence. However, he admitted in cross-examination that the shop is lying closed for a long time. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that as on that date of institution of application it is not shown that the appellant was in possession of shop she was entitled to institute application for eviction of the respondent on the ground that she needed the shops occupied by him. Subsection (2) of section 14 clearly lays down that 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. This provision was considered by me alongwith other provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance in the case of Ulfat Hamid PLD 1982 Kar.
4. 823 and after detailed discussion I reached the conclusion that if the landlord was in occupation of a building of the same type in respect whereof an application is filed before the Rent Controller then he is disentitled to invoke the benefit of section 14. It is not disputed in evidence that before filing the application the appellant succeeded in getting possession of one of the three shops situated on the ground floor. It was, however, case of the appellant that the shop, he got possession from the other tenant, was converted into residence. Mere fact that the landlord after obtaining possession of a shop has converted it to residence could not defeat the provisions of section 14(2) which clearly lays down that if landlord is in possession of any such premises, he would be disentitled to invoke the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance. In these circumstances even if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted that before filing of the application the shop which she had obtained from another tenant was converted into residence this would not improve the case of the appellant as in any case she was having in her possession one shop at the time when she filed the ejectment application before the Rent Controller which disentitled her to invoke the provisions of section 14. However, the dismissal of the application under section 14 is no bar to the filing of fresh application under section 15 of the Ordinance. With these observations the appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.