' Appellant S. Mumtaz Hussain has filed this First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred tc as Ordinance) against the order, dated 14-10- 1982, of Vlth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller whereby he has dismissed his Rent Application.
2. The appellant is owner of the building on Plot No,R-313 of 1981 F.B. Area Karachi and the respondent is his tenant of Shop No,1, on the ground floor at the rate of Rs,350 per month, since October, 1978. He filed Rent Case under section 14 of the Ordinance on 28-9-1981 on the ground that after retirement he requires the shop for his personal bona fide use in good faith.
3. That respondent filed written statement in which he stated that building consists of two storeys.
The first floor is used for residential purposes and one "Dochati" is in possession of tenant while the remaining entire floor is lying vacant which could be used by the appellant. The respondent is tenant of one shop on ground floor where he is running his dispensary since 1974. He has also mentioned that ground floor cannot be used for residential purposes as it consists of two shops.
4. Before the Rent Controller the appellant examined himself when on the other side the respondent was also examined.
5. Appellant corroborated the contents of his Rent Application and stated that he is in need of shop as has large family consisting of 12 members. The first floor of his building is still under construction and is insufficient. He has stated that ground floor of all the buildings in the locality are not being used for commercial puposes. He has denied the suggestion that he wants to sell the property and also denied to have given such advertisement for the purpose for the sale. He has filed the Rent case against another tenant occupying another shop.
6. Respondent Dr. Ashfaq Ali has stated in his evidence that shop is not required by appellant for his residential purpose in good faith as construction of Ist floor of his building is complete and it is now lying vacant which is sufficient for the appellant and his family. He has fully supported the contentions raised in his written statement. He has produced cutting from "JANG" Exh.16, and stated that appellant wants to sell the property.
7. I have heard Mr. Hassan Jaffar learned counsel for the appellantand Mr. Saleem Iqbal, Advocate for the respondent at length and have gone through the evidence and record of the Rent case. The appellant rented out the premises as a shop as per agreement Exh.5, produced by the appellant in his evidence.
8. The learned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that premises under occupation of respondent is commercial one, therefore, A application under section 14 of the Ordinance is not maintainable.
9. Mr. Hassan Jaffar has relied upon the case reported PLD 1981 SC 118; PLD 1983 Kar. 419 and 1980 SCM R 590. The facts of the case cited are different. In fact case of Supreme Court is on the point of personal requirement when landlady owned and possessed another building in any locality. In. This case landlord has vacant accommodation available on the Ist floor. The facts of the other two cited cases are different.
10. Mr. Saleem Iqbal learned counsel for the respondent has cited PLD 1982 Kar. 818, a case of Dr. Bano Abedin v. Dr. Hague Nawaz, where it has been held that facts to be considered in determining whether particular premises are residential or non-residential, the type of construction to be used residential or commercial and for what purpose used. In another case of Sabir Hussain v. Munir Khan Malik reported in PLD 1 983 Kar. 414, it has been held that landlord cannot eject tenant from a shop located in commercial area on the ground that he requires it for residential purpose when that premises let out for purpose of business and trade only. The ejectment application, in the case, was held non-maintainable.
11. The Rent Controller has also discussed the legal points in his order and so many reported cases in the impugned order. I am of the opinion that Rent Controller's order does not require interference.
' For the reasons discussed above I find no force in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal, dismissed.