1. ' This appeal under section 21, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is directed againt the order dated 3rd October, 1989, passed by the then Ilnd Rent Controller, Karachi South, in Rent Case No,1354 of 1988, whereby the appellant was directed to vacate the premises in question and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent within 60 days from the date of said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows:- ' Respondent Haji Khair Muhammad had filed eviction application against appellant Ahmed Ismail for his eviction from shop/godown on ground floor of Plot No,1982 in the building known as "Haji Khair Muhammad Manzil" Locomal Chalaram Road, Nawabad, Karachi, hereinafter called the premises, On the ground of bona fide personal use. The case of respondent is that he is a carpenter by profession and requires the said premises for keeping his wooden furniture, finished household goods, tools and machinery etc. Which are necessary for his trade. h is alleged that he is not in' ossession aof any: other shop for this purpose. The appellant resisted the claim, of respondent and maintained that he had taken on 26-9-1975 said premises on rent from M/s. Sher Ali and Piyar Ali, after paying them an amount of Rs, 68,000 as Pugree, and this fact was in the knowledge of the respondent. He is prepared to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent provided an amount of Rs,2 lacs is paid to him as Pugree, which according to him is the prevalent market rate of Pugree in the vicinity of said premises.
2. ' The respondent, in support of his case, filed his Affidavit-in-evidence and that of his witnesses Muhammad Sultan and Abdul Majeed. The respondent and Muhammad Sultan were cross- examined. It appears that Abdul Majeed was not produced in Court for the purpose of cross- examination, though his affidavit-in-evidence was filed, therefore, his affidavit- in-evidence will not be, taken into consideration. The appellant filed his affidavit-in-evidence and that of his witnesses Muhammad Umer and Muhammad lshaque. They all were cross-examined.
3. ' Learned Rent Controller settled the following issues:-
(1) Whether applicant requires the demised premises for his personal bona tide use in good faith?
(2) What should the order be?"
4. ' On assessm ent of evidence brought on record, learned. Rent Controller decided the issue No,1 in affirmative and consequently allowed the eviction application, which order has been impugned in this appeal.
5. 'Respondent Haji Khair Muhammad in cross-examination stated that he had purchased the building in question in April, 1988 and so was mentioned by him in the notice dated 8-5-1988, which was sent to the tenants of said building. He stated that it is a five-storeyed building. He mentioned that he does not know if all the tenants of this building arc "Pugree Tenants". He stated that the area of premises in question is 300/400 sq. Ft. He denied the suggestion that the 'appellant had obtained possession of the premises after paying Pugree. He also denied the appellant's suggestion that he (respondent) had offered an amount of Rs,1,25,000 to the appellant for possession of the pemises in question. Muhammad Sultan in his affidavit-in-evidence has supported the respondent. The appellant, in cross-examination, maintained that he has mentioned in his written reply about payment of Rs,68,000 on 26-9- 1975 as Pugree, which, in fact, he did not He admitted that he has no document to show that he had said amount as Pugree. He also admitted that he does not have any account book showing payment of said Pugree. He also admitted that-he does not maintain any account of his business. In reply to another question, he stated that he does not know if the respondent has any shop for carrying on his business. The testimony of Muhammad Umar and Muhammad Ishaque is on the same pattern as that of the appellant.
6. ' It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he had obtained possession of the premises, after paying aforesaid amount as Pugree, and unless the pugree amount at the prevalent market rate is not paid to him, he is not liable to be evicted from the premises. It is proved from the evidence brought on record that respondent has no other premises for carrying on his business. Therefore, the personal bona fide requirement of respondent is not seriously challenged, nor possibly it could be challenged, as nothing material in rebuttal has been brought on record. When a specific question was put to the A appellant as to, vvhethel the respondent has any other premises for carrying on his trade the appellant remained evasive and simply stated that he does not know.
7. This in fact is an implied admission to the effect that the respondent does not have any other premises for carrying on his business. After this the only point which now remains to be resolved is of Pugree.
8. In written' reply, the appellant did not say about payment of Rs,68,000 as Pugree. This allegation finds mention in para. 2 of his affidavit-in-evidence. Admittedly he is not in possession of any document showing the payment of said amount to the previous landlords who are not party to these proceedings. In their absence any finding, which may adversely affect them cannot be recorded. For the purpose of this matter, it is observed that no amount of Pugree was paid to the respondent and he is not responsible for any transaction, which took place, if any, between the appellant and the previous owners.,Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention on point of Pugree cited (1) PLD 1986: Karachi 16 Muhammad Hanif v. Mumtaz Ahmed, (2) 1990 CLC 904 Shahnaz Begum v. Ikhlas Ahmed. In Muhammad Hanif's case the question under consideration whether the landlord after having accepted pugree in respect of the tenement was legally entitled to seek relief under the provisions of West. Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. It was answered in negative. 'It was held that after accepting Pugree landlord renders himself ineffectual, because he has imparted to the tenant something more than the tenancy rights and acts as helpless spectator when the tenant sells away his "Pugree" right to another tenant and the, .
9. Landlord cannot raise any objection to it, but has to agree to change receipt in the name of, new tenant for which he gets some additional money. In Shahnawaz Begum's case it was held, that if a tenant ,succeeds in 'proving that he has paid any amount by way of Pugree to previous landlord, the eviction should be conditional on.Payment of that amount.
10. ' As against the above learned counsel for the respondent cited on this point (1) '1987 SCM R 307 Shaikh Muhammad Yousuf v. District Judge Rawalpindi, and two others, (2) '1990 CLC 1064 Mst.
11. Fatima Bai v. Shaikh Muhammad Zaki and 6 others. In the case of Shaikh Muhammad Yousuf it was held that Pugree was a mutual agreement between the parties and would not debar the landlord from instituting eviction proceedings on the ground of bona fide personal need. Above principle was followed in Mst. Fatima Bai's case.
12. There is no provision of Pugree in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. This Ordinance is a special law and its provisions are to be construed keeping regard to its'own subject, and the purpose for which it, was promulgated. According to the rules of interpretation of statutes, a law cannot be applied to a matter which is hot 'strictly covered by its provisions. Since. Pugree has not been recognised in this Ordinance, the question of its applicability 'in the cases instituted under the Ordinance does not arise. The plea that Pugree is a reality, particularly' in Karachi, as such, it shall be 'recognised and given it due effect, tantainounts to challenge the wisdom legislature, which is not permissible.' Suffice it to say that Court has no power to re-write a section or to add something in the shape of a new provision: Admittedly, no Pugree was paid, to the respondent .Even if it would have been paid, still the respondent could not be debarred' from instituting eviction proceedings against the appellant on the ground of personal bona fide need: as this ground has no nexus with the plea of Pigree. -' In consequence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. Three months time from now, however, is granted to the appellant for handing over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent.