' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This judgment will dispose of two petitions, C.P.L.A. Nos. 628-K of 1989 and 629-K of 1989 filed by Salim Ahmad Khan petitioner seeking leave to appeal against two separate judgments passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court, Karachi, dated 19th September, 1989, dismissing his two separate appeals.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-- ' On 1st January, 1973, one Muhammad Latif, the late husband of Mst. Jamila Latif, the present respondent, leased out two shops which were previously two garages in front of his house bearing No, 172-Y, Block No, 2, Tariq Road, P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi, to Salim Ahmad Khan, present petitioner, on a rental of Rs,200 per mensem each, for a period of 11 months; the rent to be paid by him before the 10th of every month. On 1st February, 1973, the said Muhammad Latif leased out to the petitioner the whole of his bungalow on the same plot on a rental of Rs,500 per mensem for a period of 11 months. The commercial plot 20' x 60' in front of the bungalow was excluded from the lease. On 1st July, 1975, the said Muhammaa Latif rented out four shops in front of his house to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs, 225 each, for a period of 11 months; the rent to be paid by him before the 10th of every month. It may be here stated that the earlier two shops rented out on 1st January, 1973, merged in the four shops. In 1976, Muhammad Latif gifted the entire bungalow and the shops in front thereof to his wife Mst. Jamila Latif, respondent. On 22nd March, 1979, the respondent filed two eviction petitions against the petitioner. In case No, 1526 of 1979, relating to the four shops, she pleaded default on the part of petitioner in payment of rent at Rs, 900 per mensem from October, 1978, and in Case No, 1527 of 1979, relating to the ground floor portion of the bungalow, she pleaded default on the part of the petitioner in payment of rent at Rs, 600 per mensem from October, 1978, bona fide personal need and unauthorised construction. The Vth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (East), by judgment dated 13th October, 1985, and 18th September, 1985, accepted the Applications and ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the four shops and the ground floor portion of the bungalow respectively. The petitioner thereupon preferred two appeals Nos. RFA 566 of 1985 and RFA 541 of 1985 against the said two decisions, which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court on 19th September, 1989. Being aggrieved by the said two judgments, the petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the said judgments.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that before 1975 he had paid a pugree of Rs, 2,00,000 to the late Muhammad Latif, husband of the respondent, to enable him to alter the two shops (which really were garages which had been leased previously) into four shops and to build for himself rooms over the bungalow where he could live, which the said Muhammad Latif did, and after which he rented out the four shops to the petitioner on 1st July, 1975, and since the case is one involving the payment of pugree, the rent case vis-a-vis four shops was not maintainable against the petitioner. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the two eviction petitions Muhammad Latif died in 1980 and respondent filed two fresh eviction petitions under section 14(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, claiming the bungalow for personal use and the four shops for starting her own business. The eviction petition relating to the bungalow was dismissed on the ground that the respondent had accommodation on the first floor and that section 14(2) was a bar.
The eviction petition relating to the four shops was allowed. Both the orders were passed on 3rd October, 1982. Being aggrieved by the orders passed relating to the four shops, the petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court, which was partly allowed and the petitioner was allowed to retain possession of two shops, against which appeals of both the parties are presently pending in the Supreme Court. It is submitted that notwithstanding the stay order granted by the Supreme Court on 14th January, 1986, the two lower Courts had ordered the eviction of the petitioner. It is next contended that in respect of default, only the rent of November, 1978, has been held not to have been paid in time and since the petitioner had paid the said rent for the said month in respect of both the properties to the respondent and for which she had not given any receipts and he was constrained to send the rents for November, 1978 to January, 1979, by money order, which again were refused, and he had to deposit rents from December, 1979 onwards in Court, the bona fides of the petitioner stood clearly established and he was entitled to condonation in respect of late payment of rents for November, 1978. It is lastly submitted that the respondent being an occupant of the first floor of the bungalow, where the accommodation was large and suitable for her needs, the further need for the ground floor did not stand established.
4. With the assistance of Mr. Yahya Bakhtiar, learned counsel, we have gone through the records. So far as the question of pugree is concerned, the same finds no mention in any of the three rental agreements. No issue was framed by the Rent Controller in that behalf and no attempt was made by the petitioner to have such an issue framed at any later stage. This matter, therefore, cannot be considered on a ground not properly pleaded in the lower Court. With regard to the two cross appeals of both the parties now pending in the Supreme Court arising out of one of the two eviction petitions filed by respondent under section 14(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the said proceedings cannot bar the respondent from pursuing her other two eviction petitions on grounds of default, bona fide personal need or damage under section 15 of the said Ordinance. The filing of an application under section 14 does not bar the filing of an application under section 15 and vice versa. Both sections refer to separate causes of action. In an application moved under section 14, no burden is cast on the landlord or landlady to establish good faith in respect of his or her bona fide personal need, whereas the same is necessary in an application under section 15. Sec Bakhsh Elahi v. Qazi Wasif Ali 1985 SCMR 291. As regards the question of default regarding the month of November, 1978, in both the cases both the lower Courts have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the said rent was not paid, nor was the same sent by the petitioner to the respondent by money order. According to the tenancy agreements dated 1st February, 1973 and 1st July, 1975, rents were to be paid by the 10th of the month for which they were due. Under section 15(2)(ii) of the Ordinance the petitioner had further fifteen days to pay the same. The petitioner, therefore, was clearly in default in both the cases in respect of rent for the period November, 1978, to January, 1979. In this view of the matter, the findings of both Courts below on the question of default would appear to be correct and legal. As regards bona fide need of the premises, again both the lower Courts have given concurrent findings. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner from the record to displace this finding. Taking all circumstances into consideration, we do not consider these cases fit so as to call for interference.
Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed.