1. ' This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/landlady challenging the judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Jacobabad on 25-6-1990 whereby her ejectment case was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are that the present appellant had filed an application for ejectment of the present respondent from the house bearing No,C.S. 487/2, Ward I, Jacobabad under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance). Said application was filed on 9-6-1987 being RA. No, 38/87, Her case in the said application is that the present respondent was a tenant of the said house at the rent of Rs,175 per month which fact is not disputed. She further averred that she was co-sharer in the said house with one Nizamuddin Shah but ultimately by inheritance she became exclusive owner of the said premises vide entry dated 8-10-1986 made in the City Survey Record. The applicant had subsequently served a notice on 2-1-1986 on the respondent wherein she intimated him of her having become sole owner and further asked for vacating of the said house as she needed the same for the purposes of her residence. She asserted that her husband later Ghulam Mustafa was in Government service and thus in occupation of official residence at Bath Island Karachi and on his demise she was being pressed by the Government authorities to vacate the said flat and not having any other property of her own she needed the said house for her residence. The notice was replied by the respondent on 17-11-1986 wherein various pleas were taken. Consequently the appellant filed the above rent case which was contested by the respondent and written objections were filed. The case of the respondent is that the premises in dispute are a disputed property and the landlady was required to clear her title and also that the rent case was not maintainable as no notice in accordance with section 14 of the Ordinance was served. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the above pleadings of the parties settled the only point for determination which is "whether rent application filed by applicant under section 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is maintainable and opponent is liable to eviction." The appellant examined her attorney Atta Hussain Shah who produced various documents including notice, reply notice, City Survey extract etc. She also examined City Surveyor while the respondent filed his own affidavit-in-evidence and was cross-examined. The learned Rent Controller having found that the application under section 14 of the Ordinance was not maintainable, rejected the same. Hence this appeal.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik for the appellant and Mr. Gul Bahar Korai for the respondent.
4. The only point which requires consideration in this case is whether rent application would be maintainable under section 14 of the Ordinance. Although it is not denied that after the service of notice the rent was not paid by the respondent to the appellant which itself would have afforded an independent ground for filing ejectment case under section 15 of the Ordinance but here we are concerned with only section 14 of the Ordinance as the rent case was filed under section 14. As regards the plea taken by the respondent that the property was a disputed property, suffice it to say that the evidence of the City Surveyor (Ex.36) and the extract from City Survey record (Ex.37) show that the applicant had become the sole owner of the disputed premises vide entry dated 8- 10-1986 which is prior to her filing the rent case. Even otherwise it is not the concern of the tenant to raise dispute pertaining to the title of the landlord where he has been paying the rent to previous landlord and the property on death of previous landlord devolves on his heiRs, The other question pertains to section 14. It will be pertinent to reproduce here the provisions of section 14 of the Ordinance which read as under:--
14. "Delivery of vacant possession.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance or any other law for the time being in force, the landlord of a building who is a widow, or a minor whose both parents are dead or a salaried employee due to retire within the next six months or has retired or a person who is due to attain the age of sixty years within the next six months or has attained the age of sixty years, may, by notice in writing inform the tenant that he or she needs the building for personal use and require him to deliver vacant possession of the building within such time as may be specified in the notice, not being earlier than two months from the receipt thereof: ' Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply where the landlord has rented out the building after he has retired or attained the age of sixty years or, as the case may be, has become widow or orphan.
(2) The landlord shall not be entitled to avail the benefit of subsection (1) if he is in occupation of a building owned by him in any locality.
(3) ................ It ' It may be seen that above provisions as regards widow requires that in order to bring a case under section 14 the applicant should be a widow, should have served a notice in writing on the tenant informing him that she needed the premises for her personal use and that he should be asked to vacate the same within such time as may be specified in the notice not being. Earlier than two months from the receipt thereof. The notice issued by the appellant in this case through her Advocate of course intimates him about her having become sole owner but also contained the following:- "That my clientess requires the house for her residential purpose. Because her late husband Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Shah was Government servant and at the time of his death' he was posted at Karachi as the Additional Secretary, Law Department. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Shah was occupying a fiat given by the Government as called Deputy Secretary Hats' bearing No,9, Block No,2 Bath Island, Karachi. Now after the death of Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Shah, my clientess has been directed to vacate the premises. But after great efforts she has been given two years time. Thereafter she will have to vacate the house under the circumstances she has to make abode in her own house. As such by this notice you please are requested to vacate the house and hand it over to my clientess.
5. She needs the house bona fidely, in good faith, for her personal use."
6. ' The above contents of the notice clearly show that the appellant had in her notice stated that her husband was a Government servant and occupied Government residence at Bath Island Karachi and that after his demise she is being pressed for vacating the said premises and that she therefore requires the premises in dispute for her occupation as this is the only property owned by her. These contents of this notice fulfil the first two conditions required under section 14 of the Ordinance as mentioned above. However, it may be observed that no specific time is mentioned in the notice for the tenant to vacate the premises. This provisions may be read in the light of general principles of interpretation of statutes. The provisions itself provides that in case time is not specified in the notice it shall not be less than two months which gives an option and not a mandate. In these circumstances in case the widow has not mentioned the specified period then that period would not be treated to be less than two months.
7. ' Mr. Gul Bahar Korai in support of his contention has placed reliance on the case of Mst. Kulsoom Begum v. M/s. Allied Con. Industries (1989 CLC 969) wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that where no exclusive notice under section 14 was given but in the caption of the notice sections 15 and 18 of the Ordinance were also mentioned, the case could not be treated as one under section 14 of the Ordinance. It may be observed that in that case the ejectment sought under section 14 was not exclusively on the ground of personal requirement but also the landlady had put up the pleas of unauthorized subletting, default and nuisance by tenant and had also claimed that she needed the shop to set up business of her son. These facts clearly show that the above- referred case was not under section 14 of the Ordinance while in the present case the application for ejectment filed is purely on the ground of personal requirement of a widow on the demise of her husband. In these circumstances I am of the view that the findings of the learned Rent Controller on this point are erroneous. Accordingly the appeal is accepted and orders of the learned Rent Controller are set aside. The application for ejectment filed by the appellant under section 14 of the Ordinance is accepted. The respondent shall hand over the vacant possession to the applicant within sixty days of this order. There will be no order as to costs.