' This is landlord's appeal against dismissal of his Rent Case No,351/86 ordered by learned V Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi East on 55-1990.
2. Admittedly the appellant rented out the shop in litigation mentioned in para. 1 of the rent application to the respondent under a rent agreement dated 20-8-1975, with effect from 18-9-1975.
It is also admitted position that the appellant was Grade 18 officer of the Government of Pakistan and he retired from his service with effect from 17-8-1975. On 6-1-1986 the appellant gave a legal notice to the respondent asking him to vacate the disputed shop. This notice was replied by the respondent.
3. The appellant filed Rent Case No,351/86 under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance), for eviction of the respondent from the disputed shop on the only ground that he had retired from service and that he wanted to start some business in the disputed shop.
4. Rent application was opposed by the respondent, who in his written statement challenged its maintainability on the ground that the appellant had rented out the disputed shop after his retirement from service and that the appellant was in possession of another shop and a house owned by him in P.E.C.H.S. Karachi. The respondent took further plea that for taking possession of the disputed shop he had paid "Pagri" of Rs,10,000 on 20-8-1975 to Zafar Ali, who was previous tenant of the appellant in the same shop. Respondent spoke about an agreement of sale having been executed between him and Zafar Ali on 20-8-1975. The respondent claimed to have paid rent for September, 1975 to November, 1975 to appellant's brother Mushtaq Ali on 21-8-1975 at the rate of Rs,175 per month. The respondent added that the appellant after his retirement' was doing private service for quite some time and later on he fell ill and was advised rest and that he was not in a position to carry out any business.
5. After recording evidence of the parties, learned Rent Controller under the impugned judgment dated 5-5-1990 dismissed the application for ejectment, after observing that the appellant was supposed to show genuineness with regard to the personal requirement and that had the requirement been genuine the appellant would have moved the Rent Application immediately after 21-11-1979, which was the date of promulgation of the Ordinance. Another ground which weighed with the trial Court was that the appellant was receiving Rs,3,000 per month as rent and he had joined private service after his retirement.
6. Mr. Khizar Askar Zaidi, learned counsel for the appellant argued that right to seek eviction of tenant on the ground of retirement from service accrued to the appellant on 21-11-1979 when the Ordinance was promulgated and consequently the appellant had a legal right to seek the eviction of the respondent from the disputed shop. It was next argued that there was no time limit for moving an application under Section 14 of the Ordinance. Learned counsel referred to the case of Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Syed Abdul Qayoom 1988 CLC 773 where the view taken was that notwithstanding the landlord's having let out the premises in the year 1974 after the death of her husband, she was still legally entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 14 of the Ordinance. For taking such view reliance was placed upon observations made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No,34 of 1984.
7. Unfortunately none appeared for the respondent to provide any assistance to the Court.
8. In the instant case the appellant stated in his affidavit that he had retired from service with effect from 17-8-1975. He filed in the case photo copy of a Notification dated 7-2-1975 showing that the appellant as Section Officer, Interior Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad was retired from service with effect from 17-8-1975. This fact was not disputed by the respondent in his written statement where agreement of lease dated 20-8-1975 was also admitted.
9. In his affidavit the appellant stated that he was at Islamabad when his brother and attorney Mushtaq All let out the disputed shop to the respondent under lease agreement dated 20-8-1975.
Appellant added that he wanted to start his own business and hence he needed the disputed shop for personal use and occupation. In his cross-examination the appellant admitted that he was relieved from service on 17-8-1975 and on 18-9-1975 he let out the shop through Mushtaq Ali.
Appellant also admitted that initial rent of the shop was Rs,175 per month but it was enhanced to Rs,200 per month in 1981, and to Rs,225 per month in 1982. He also admitted that from April 1982 the rent was increased to Rs,250 per month and from April, 1983 the rent was increased to Rs,275 per month. This shows that real purpose behind filing of the ejectment application is to harass the respondent for agreeing to further enhancement of rent. Appellant admitted that in July 1985 respondent sent rent by money order, which was refused. Appellant admitted that the respondent was depositing rent in Court in Misc. Rent Case No,434/85. He admitted that he had filed another case against the respondent under Section 15 of the Ordinance. He admitted that after retirement he joined private service and that he was getting Rs,3,000 per month from rent.
10. The appellant also filed affidavits of Mukhtar Ahmed and Abdul Rahman who supported him and said that the appellant had retired as Section Officer and that he had been mentioning that he wanted to start his business in one of the shops and that the appellant had no place for business.
11. The respondent in his affidavit denied claim of the appellant about personal requirement and raised the same objections which he had raised in his written statement. He also spoke about having paid Rs,10,000 as Pagri to Zafar Ali. In respect of payment of Pagri, there is no provision of law by which it would stand in way of landlord in seeking evict ion of his tenant if otherwise he has remedy under the Ordinance.
12. Section 14 of the Ordinance enables a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant, inter alia, on the ground that he was salaried employee and he had retired from service. However, in such a case the landlord has to establish his prima facie need. It was observed in the case of Ghulam Mohammad v. Zaheer Ahmad Khan (1986 C I, C 681) that although bona fide requirement is not required to be proved by the landlord under Section 14 of the Ordinance, but at least he has to prove that he needs the premises. It was also observed that the word "needs" appearing in Section 14 of the Ordinance does indicate that the landlord has to establish that it is not his arbitrary desire to have a particular premises vacated but that he has a need for the same and the need has therefore, to be proved. In the case of Syed Israr Alam v. S.M. Hussain 1983 CLC 464, the view taken was that the word "needs" in Section 14 of the Ordinance was not to be interpreted as if divorced from concept of bona fides or mala fides and that the landlord applying for eviction in summary manner for personal need is required to prove bona tides of his retirement.
13. In the instant case the appellant retired from service with effect from 17-8-1975 and had he required the shop for his own use he would not have rented out the same to the respondent on 20- 8-1975. The proviso below subsection (1) of section 14 of the Ordinance says that the provisions contained by subsection (1) of section 14 shall not apply to a landlord who has rented out the premises after his retirement or after his having attained the age of sixty years or after he/she has become widow or orphan. Furthermore the Ordinance was promulgated on 21-11-1979 while the rent case was filed by the appellant on 23-4-1986. Although no period of limitation is prescribed for moving an application under Section 14 c of the Ordinance but the delay in moving the application militates against the appellant having genuine need for the premises. Increase of rent from Rs,175 per month to Rs,275 per month in the years 1981 to 1983 shows that real intention behind moving of this application is to make the respondent agree to arbitrary increase of rent. There is evidence to show that the appellant joined private service after his retirement and that rental income of the appellant is Rs,3,000 per month. In any case the appellant has not been able to establish his genuine need for the disputed shop.
14. In the circumstances the appellant has not been able to establish his need for the disputed shop. Consequently I maintain the order of the Court below and dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.