1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This appeal filed by Hafiz Abdul Malik appellant-landlord is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind, dated 24th November, 1985 whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed and order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the application of the appellant for respondent's (Muhammad Ilyas) eviction was upheld.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the appellant is the landlord of the disputed premises whereas the respondent is the tenant thereof. The appellant filed rent case under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for the eviction of the respondent from the said premises on the grounds that he was aged more than sixty years and that he required the premises for his bona fide use. His contention was that he did not own or possess any other house or property anywhere in Pakistan and that presently he was residing with one of his sons. In support of the contention that he was over sixty years old the appellant stated in the application that he was born on 22nd July, 1908 and that this date of birth of his was mentioned in his National Identity Card issued on 25th May, 1974 as well as in the photo copy of his passport. The respondent in his written statement took up the position that the application of the appellant was not maintainable as he had not filed it within reasonable time. He further stated that both the parties had been involved in litigation for the past numerous years and that as the application had been instituted with mala fide intention it was liable to be dismissed. It was averred that according to his date of birth the appellant attained the age of sixty years in 1968 whereas he filed the rent application in the year 1983 i.e, 15 years thereafter. In that view of the matter, he had abandoned his right and was not entitled to any relief under section 14 of the said Ordinance. It was also contended that the appellant was the owner of other properties in various localities of Karachi. Therefore he did not require the flat in dispute bona fide. The Rent Controller Karachi vide his order, dated 19th December, 1983 after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance and he dismissed the rent case. On appeal of the appellant before the High Court, as stated above, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same on the basis of the following reasoning: "I have gone through the record. The appellant gave his residential address in the year 1980 in passport as House No,533, P.I.B. Colony. The applications of passport are always signed and attested by the applicant. Therefore there is no possibility of any mistake. Had the appellant been in bona fide need of the premises, he should have filed rent case immediately after attaining the age of sixty years. It has also come on record that in year 1967 he filed a rent case which ended in year 1982 but no ground of personal requirement was taken by the appellant. During the arguments it was also pointed out that another rent case on the point of default has been filed against the respondent which is pending. However I do not like to enter into the merits of that case and litigation between the parties. Keeping in view that the appellant remained silent for over 15 years and did not come to avail of benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance, and also not proved personal bona fide requirement, in my view he is not entitled to get benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance."
3. ' Leave to appeal was granted in this case to consider as to whether the appellant admittedly being over sixty years of age was not entitled to get the respondent evicted from the disputed flat under the provisions of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
4. ' Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that admittedly the appellant is over sixty years of age, he was an old man and had no other place to live. Therefore he was entitled to avail of the benefit of the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance. It was further submitted that it was established from the record that the appellant did not own any other property except the disputed premises and that he was residing presently with one son or the other. It was next submitted that whatever be the past litigation in respect of the matter between the parties in 1967 which ended in 1982, it had no relevancy so far as the present rent suit of the appellant was concerned which was filed under the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance. It was argued that the High Court was not justified in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant remained silent for over 15 years after attaining the age of sixty years and that, therefore he could not avail of the benefit of the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance. It was further submitted that section 14 was added in the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which came into force on 21st November, 1979. In other words it was submitted that before that date the benefit of section 14 was not available to the appellant and therefore it could not be said that he remained silent for over 15 years before availing of the benefit of the aforesaid provision. The present rent application was filed by him on 25th June, 1983 and that under section 14 of the Ordinance since there was no time, limit fixed, the application of the appellant for the eviction of the respondent was maintainable and he should have been granted the benefit of the provisions of the said section. It was submitted by learned counsel that the respondent could not prove that the appellant owned any other property than the disputed premises. It was also argued that it was well-established on the record that the appellant did not reside in his own premises but was living with one son or the other who had limited accommodation. In this background it cannot be said that he had moved the rent application when there was no personal need or necessity or that it had not been moved in good faith or that the appellant had slept over for a period of 15 years without availing of the benefit of the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued before us that the lapse of 15 years on the part of the appellant in the instant case was relevant for determining the bona fide intention of the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant had given the address of the house in which he had been residing in the year 1980 when he got his passport made. Therefore there was no genuine personal need for getting the respondent evicted from the disputed premises. It was submitted that if the appellant wanted to avail of the benefit of the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance he could have filed the rent case immediately on that basis as soon as the right was created under the aforesaid section in 1979. But he still slept over for a period of 4 years before moving the said rent application. Consequently the application had not been filed by him in good faith. It was next submitted that in the previous litigation for the same property which ended in 1982 the appellant did not take up this ground nor of personal requirement. It was also pointed out that he had even moved another rent case on the point of default as against the respondent which was still pending. According to learned counsel that case was dismissed as withdrawn before filing the present rent suit under section 14 of the Ordinance. It was therefore, argued that this also indicated the bad faith of the appellant that he withdrew the previous rent suit in order to avail of the benefit of the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance.
5. ' We have carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 came into force on 21st November, 1979 and therefore the appellant could only avail of the benefit of the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance thereafter. Consequently, it is evident that the observation of the High Court to the effect that the appellant remained silent for over 15 years after attaining the age of sixty years and did not come to avail of the said benefit was not justified. Indeed he did file the rent application under the aforesaid section after 4 years i.e, on 25th June, 1983, but then the said application was maintainable as there was no time fixed under the aforesaid section whereunder such application could be or should be moved. It is also evident from the record that the appellant had no other house or property except the disputed premises and that he had been residing with one son or the other. Again it is evident from the record that the appellant had been involved in litigation for getting the respondent evicted since 1967, but he did not succeed until 1982. Again he filed another rent case as against the respondent on the point of default but withdrew the same. All this litigation indicated that there was genuine personal need on his part to get the respondent evicted from the said flat so that he could himself reside therein instead of living with one son or the other who may have not even been agreeable to have the old man reside with them. In that view of the matter it is not correct to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant had not acted in good faith or that he could not prove personal bona fide requirement. In the light of the above discussion this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Rent Controller are hereby set aside. The respondent shall vacate the premises in dispute within four months from the date of this order without notice to him on the part of the appellant, and that for these four months he would pay rent in advance to the appellant immediately. However there shall be no order as to costs.