1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---Respondent filed an application for ejectment under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance which was allowed. The first Rent Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the impugned judgment of the Sindh High Court.
2. ' The case has a chequered history and it is necessary to state the relevant facts. On 7-12-1982 the respondent retired from PIDC. In May 1983 after serving notice under section 14 he filed six separate ejectment applications under sections 14 and 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance for ejectment of six tenants including the appellant from the out houses built on plot No,29, Street No,F.T.2 Lilly Road, Frere Town, Karachi. The respondent had pleaded that he has retired from service and requires the premises for reconstruction of a new building for which plan has been approved by the relevant authorities. He further pleaded that the bungalow is in a dilapidated condition in which he cannot live. The out houses are also in a dilapidated condition and are crumbling being 90 years old construction. The respondent will reconstruct the building according to the approved plan for his personal use. The tenants, including the appellants filed application under sections 17, 14 and 15 pleading that application under section 14 was not maintainable because of the plea of the reconstruction of the building. The learned Controller by his order, dated 29-10-1983 dismissed this application and held that application under section 14 was maintainable. The tenants filed first rent, appeals, before the High Court which was allowed by a common judgment dated 5-2-1984. It was observed that section 14 was not applicable but the ejectment application was allowed to be amended as application under section 15 (2)(vi) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. Accordingly the applications filed in May, 1983, under sections 14 and 15 were amended on 5-2-1984 by deleting section 14 from each of them. These rent cases were dismissed by the learned Controller by a common order, dated 30-1-1988.
3. ' The respondent/landlord again served notice under section 14 on 11-3-1984 upon all the tenants including the appellant. After expiry of the statutory notice period the respondent filed six fresh ejectment cases against the tenants entirely on the plea that he has retired from service and needs the out houses for his personal requirement. Same objection about the maintainability of the ejectment application was raised but by order, dated 30-4-1985 was rejected by the learned Controller. The appellant filed F.RA. Against this order which was disposed of on 1-6-1985. The application under section 14 was held to be maintainable and by consent the case was remanded for decision on merits. This order was not challenged by the appellant. The learned Controller by order, dated 11-11-1985 allowed the ejectment. Applications including the one filed against the appellant under section 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance and allowed 30 days' time to vacate the premises. All these tenants including the appellant filed appeal in the Sindh High Court challenging the order of ejectment. The learned Single Judge who heard the appeals referred them to a larger Bench for consideration whether bona fides of landlord can be investigated in cases filed under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinanct. The same was considered by a Division Bench in M.S. Baroba v, Manzoor Ahmed PLD 1968 Kar. 407 and it was observed that in a case under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the question of good faith or bona fides is not to be looked into but the Controller has to see that the landlord funs the conditions mentioned in section 14. It was observed: "The manifest intention of the Legislature seems that the question of good faith has not to be gone into in the case of aforesaid persons if other conditions mentioned in section 14 namely, (1) that he informs the tenant that he needs the building for personal use and requires him to deliver vacant possession thereof within such time as may be specified in the notice, not earlier than two months from the receipt thereof, (ii) that he has not rented out the building after he has retired or attained the age of 60 years or as the case may be, has become widow or orphan, (iii) that he is not in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality have been complied with. In our opinion out of the aforesaid 3 conditions, two of them are aho germane to the requirement of the premises in good faith for a landlord cannot be said to require a premises for his personal use in good faith if he has another building in his occupation or if he rents out the premises after it falls vacant and then he applies for eviction of another tenant on the ground of personal requirement for the phrase "good faith" means "honestly" and when a person is in occupation of another premises generally speaking he cannot be said to be acting honestly when he asks for yet another premises unless the premises in his occupation is not sufficient for his need, or he rents out the premises after becoming widow or orphan or after he retires. Besides the above two conditions the Legislature has not considered necessary to impose any other condition which also may be relevant while considering the question of eviction of the tenant on an application under section 14 of the Ordinance."
4. ' After this point was settled, the appeal was heard by the learned Judge of the High Court who took the view that a landlord would be entitled to obtain ejectment of the tenant under section 14 in respect of one tenant and not all the six tenants. Accordingly he put the respondent to choose one tenant. In pursuance thereof without prejudice to his contention that he was entitled. To eject all the six tenants, pressed for the ejectment of the appellant alone. In the result the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the order of ejectment in respect of other tenants.
5. ' Some relevant facts which have surfaced on record are that the ejectment was being sought only in respect of the out-houses two of which are in occupation of the appellant as tenant.. In the rest of the area there was a bungalow which has been demolished and the out houses seem to be in dilapidated condition. The respondent after reconstruction will occupy for his personal use. The appellant is residing outside the country and she is employed in Paris. The appellant's disputed premises is in occupation of her attorney who had appeared before the Controller and admitted in cross-examination that the appellant had visited Pakistan three years back.
6. Leave was granted to consider whether in view of admitted position that the landlord wishes to demolish the out houses in order to erect a new construction on the plot of land, and further as the approved plan did not provide out-houses and the area occupied by the appellant's out houses is proposed to be left vacant can a landlord seek possession under section 14 of the Ordinance.
7. ' The main contention of Mr.N.K. Jatoi is that the respondent does not bona fide require the out house for his personal use as he wants to demolish it and reconstruct a new building for which plan has been approved. The appellant cannot challenge it at this stage as the order, dated 1-6-1985 passed by the learned Single Judge in the First Rent Appeal was not challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court. Having accepted that verdict the appellant agreed to the remand of the ejectment case and in pursuance, thereof she proceeded with the case on merits before the Controller. She cannot therefore be allowed to press this plea of lack of bona fides in this appeal.
8. The contention raised by the learned counsel questions the bona fides of the respondent which can neither be raised nor considered in proceedings under section 14 of the Ordinance. In Bakhsh Elahi v. Qazi Wasid Ali 1985 SCM R 291 it was observed as follows:--- "The object of section 14, therefore, seems to be to relieve this class of landlords from the rigours of an elaborate inquiry as to the good faith of their plea for requirement of the premises for personal use and to put them in possession thereof in the shortest possible time."
9. ' In this regard the Division Bench of the Sindh High Court in its judgment quoted above, relying on Bakhsh Ellahi's case, has laid down the correct law. This controversy now stands settled.
10. The respondent requires the premises for demolition of the existing building which after reconstruction will be occupied by him for his personal use. Although bona fides cannot be investigated, the real purpose for which eviction is sought does not militate against bona fide personal requirement. Reference can be made to Dildar Shah v. Ch. Ghulam Haider 1985 SCM R 504, Abdul Bai v. Khadam Hussain PLD 1970 SC 78, Dawood v. Muhammad Yasin PLD 1982 SC 227 and Muhammad Rafiq v. Muhammad Ismail PLD 1988 SC 91 where it was held that the pleas of "reconstruction and personal use were not mutually destructive to each other."
11. ' Mr. Akhtar Mehmood has contended that even if the disputed premises falls in open space in the plan for reconstruction ejectment should not be refused. Reliance has been placed on Mst. Aisha Bai through LRs and another v. Mst. Mobin Khatoon 1986 SCM R 1712. As this aspect of the case has been noted in the order granting leave and the facts are admitted suffice to observe that where ejectment is sought on ground of reconstruction independent of section 14 and according to the approved plan even if the disputed premises falls in open space of the new building, it cannot be made a ground for refusing ejectment. After all the new construction has to be made according to the approved plan-and so long the area occupied by the existing and disputed premises is covered by such plan either as a built up area or open space no such objection can be raised. In case under section 14 if such facts have been alleged then unless the prohibitions contained in subsections (1) and (2) of sectionl4 are attracted the landlord's bona fides shall be presumed to exist which can be rebutted by the tenant. One of the most important ingredients of.Section 14 is that the premises from which the tenant is sough to be ejected should be required for the personal use of the landlord. If the tenant is able to show otherwise ejectment application under section 14 shall fail. In the present case nothing has been brought to our notice to prove that the preconditions of section 14 are lacking or the ejectment replication is hit by the prohibitions or disqualifications enumerated therein.
12. ' We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. The appellant is allowed four months' time to vacate and hand over peaceful vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent.