1. ' Mst. Fahmida Begum, Appellant herein, is the owner of a premises constructed on Plot No, 27-D, Commercial Market, Nursery, Karachi. She had let out a shop situated on the ground floor and a flat situated on the upper floor of the said building to M/s. Allied Bank of Pakistan, the Respondent herein. She became widow on the death of her husband on 17-8-1986. Two years thereafter she addressed a notice to the Respondents under section 14(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 calling upon them to hand over the vacant possession of the shop premises in their possession. A similar notice was also sent to them in respect of the flat. Since the Respondents did not comply with the request made in the two notices sent to them by the Appellant she filed two separate applications under section 14 (3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the Court of IVth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi (East) to recover possession of the rented premises from the Respondents. The Rent Controller decided both the applications by the common judgment passed on 1-10-1991. By his such judgment he allowed the application of the Appellant in respect of the flat but rejected the application in the case of the shop premises. It is against this judgment that the Appellant (landlady) has filed this appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
2. ' Mr. Tanweer Ahmed, Advocate for the Appellant, stated that the building originally belonged to the husband of the Appellant who died on 17-8-1986 and thereafter Appellant became the landlady of the said premises and as a widow demanded to recover possession of the rented premises from the Respondents under section 14 (1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. On their refusal to do so she filed application for the same purpose before the Rent Controller under section 14 (3) of the said Ordinance. He contended that Appellant is entitled to both the premises which are to be used for different purposes by the Appellant i.e. one for her residence and other for carrying on some business. The Rent Controller has allowed her request only in respect of residential premises while arbitrarily rejected her prayer for ejectment from the shop premises. Admittedly she belongs to the class of persons who have been conferred privilege of recovering possession of the rented premises in a summary manner even without intervention of the Rent Controller under section 14
(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. In support of his such contention he referred to the cases reported in 1985 SCM R 239 and PLD 1991 SC 302.
3. ' Mr. Nizam All Khan, Advocate for the Respondents, contended that the Appellant was entitled to recover possession of only one of the two premises and the Rent Controller has rightly allowed here to do so. He referred to the cases reported in 1985 SCMR 291 and 1991 CLC 1051.
4. ' The Rent Controller after carefully going through the evidence produced by the parties in the case and relying on the dictum laid down in the case of Mohammad All Ahmed Khan v. Taufeeq Engineering Works published in 1991 CLC 1051 found Appellant entitled to one of the two premises.
5. According to him, in her statement she indirectly indicated her choice for recovering possession of the flat. He had accordingly allowed ejectment of the Respondent from the flat while dismissed her request for ejectment from the shop premises.
6. It is true that section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 makes a special provision for recovering possession of rented premises by certain class of landlords of a building like a widow, orphaned minors, salaried employees about to retire, retired persons or persons either due to reach the age of 60 years or having already attained that age and possession of the rented premises can easily be recovered through a summary procedure under that section. It may, however, be noted that the delivery of vacant possession of rented premises under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 can only be made if the rented premises is used for personal use of the landlord. Unlike section 15 (2) (vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, a landlord is not required by law to prove bona fides of his requirement. His statement to such effect may be sufficient to recover the possession of the rented premises through a summary procedure but in every case a landlord has to state in clear and unequivocal terms that the premises in question are required for his personal need as required by section 14 (1) of the Ordinance. In the present case the landlady in her cross-examination clearly stated, "I am prepared to give the ground portion of demised premises on enhanced rent if Opponents agree to vacate the first floor of premises in question". By such admission she clearly indicated that the premises on the ground floor were in fact really not needed by her. All that she needed was enhancement of rent. She has, therefore, failed to bring her case within the scope of section 14 (1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. It may be further noted that although she became widow in the year 1986 she took two years to issue a notice under section 14 (1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and filed her application under section 14 (3) of the said Ordinance only on 9-2-1989, The fact of delayed action taken by her also casts doubts on the factum of her "personal requirement" of the rented premises. She has already been given possession of the residential premises by the Rent Controller.
7. ' For the foregoing reasons I fmd no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.