' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter called the Ordinance, is directed against the order dated 5-1-1993 passed by learned IIIrd Rent Controller, Central Karachi, whereby he directed the appellant to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent within 60 days from the date of said order. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows:
2. Respondent Maimoona Begum on 4-12-1989 had filed the Rent Case under section 14(1) of the Ordinance against appellant Abdul Ghaffar Khan for his eviction from the two rooms on the ground floor of the House No,R-335/6, Federal ' B.' Area, Karachi, hereinafter referred to as the premises, on the plea of personal use as a widow for herself and her son namely Khalid Rahil. She got said property by way of gift and record of right was mutated in her name on 28th January, 1989. The appellant is her tenant in the premises at monthly rent of Rs,100. According to her, she is residing in a rented flat which is on the third floor, and being an old lady it is extremely inconvenient for her to climb the stair-case. It is alleged that she had sent two legal notices through an advocate to the appellant on 28-9-1989 and 20-10-1989 asking him to vacate the premises, but the latter managed not to receive them and got them returned to her.
3. The case of the appellant is that the eviction application was not maintainable on two grounds: Firstly, the respondent had acquired the property in question after becoming widow, as such, she could not claim the benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance. Secondly, she was already in possession of a portion of the building in question and it being so the application was hit by subsection (2) of section 14 of the Ordinance. On merit, the case of the appellant is that the respondent does not require the premises for her personal use.
4. At trial the respondent filed her affidavit-in-evidence and that of her son Khalid Rahil. Both were cross-examined. The appellant filed his affidavit-inevidence, but did not turn up for cross- examination.
5. It is pertinent to point out here that before this Court, the appellant had moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C., seeking permission to lead additional evidence to prove that the respondent was in occupation of two rooms on the first floor of the building in question, but said application was dismissed by this Court, as per detailed order dated 6-12-1994.
6. The respondent, in her affidavit-in-evidence, clearly stated that she was not in possession of any portion of the house in question nor she owned or possessed any property in any locality in her own name and that she was residing alongwith her son in a flat bearing No,27, Hassan Lodge Block 7, F.B. Area, Karachi, where she had shifted and the marriage of her son Khalid Hameed was solemnised there. According to her, the premises was gifted to her about 20 years ago by her sister namely Mst. Fatima Muhammad, but the record was mutated in her favour on the date mentioned earlier. Respondent's son Khalid Rahil in his affidavit-in-evidence stated that before his marriage he was living in a rented house and after September, 1989 he and his mother shifted in the aforesaid flat.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller had settled the following issues:
(1) Whether the applicant is entitled to seek benefit of section 14(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
(2) Whether the premises in question is required by the applicant for her personal use as well as for the use of her son namely Khalid Raheel?
(3) What should the order be?
8. On assessm ent of evidence learned Controller decided Issues Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
Consequently, he allowed eviction application of the respondent by the order, which has been impugned in this appeal.
9. Section 14 of the Ordinance reads 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 vacation possession of the building within such time as may be specified in the notice not being earlier than two months from the receipt there of: ' 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) Where the tenant has failed to deliver the possession of the building under subsection (1), the Controller shall, on application by the landlord in this behalf, order eviction of the tenant from the building in a summary manner, by using such force as may be necessary."
10. A perusal of the aforesaid section shows that its object is to provide summary and speedy remedy to the specified landlords viz. The landlady of a building who is widow, or a minor whose both parents are dead, or a salaried employee due to retire within next six months or has retired or a person who is due to attain the age of 60 years within next six months, or has attained the age of 60 years. These specified landlords can invoke the provisions of said section 14 but these are subject to conditions laid down in this proviso of subsection (1) and subsection (2). Therefore, a widow, orphan, salaried employee, or a person having attained the age of 60 years, if has rented out the building after having retired or attaining the age of 60 years or becoming widow or orphan, would not be entitled to the benefit of this section. Likewise, a landlord would not be entitled to avail the benefit of this section if he is in occupation of a building owned by him, in any locality. It is significant to note that in this section no period of limitation is provided within which such application is to be filed.
11. Mr. Ismail Padhiyar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Rent Controller has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent was already in possession of a portion of the house in question and it being so she was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under said section.
12. As pointed out earlier, the appellant did not appear before learned Controller for cross- examination as such, the contents of his affidavit-inevidence could not be taken into consideration. From the cross-examination of the respondent and her son it was not established that they were in occupation of a portion of said house and probably for that reason, the appellant had filed application in this Court for producing additional evidence, which for valid reasons was rejected.
13. Mr. Abid S. Zubairi, learned counsel for the respondent cited the case of Syed Hasan Ali v.
Muhammad Hanif PLD 1994 SC 716 wherein it was held that mere fact that the landlord seeking ejectment of tenant from a shop was occupying the residential premises on the upper floor of the same building would not disqualify him from invoking section 14 of the Ordinance. Further, it was observed that where tenant failed to prove that landlord was in possession of a portion of the building in question, which had nexus with the suit premises of which the ejectment was sought, landlord would be entitled to get the tenant ejected under section 14. In the instant case, the appellant was not able to furnish the relevant particulars about the alleged portion of said house, which according to him was in possession of the respondent. Under the circumstances, the appellant cannot challenge the maintainability of the application on said ground.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that, the respondent having acquired the property after becoming widow could not claim the benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance.
According to learned counsel, only a lady who first acquired property and thereafter became widow could claim the benefit of said section. The section simply used the word "widow". Therefore, the case of a widow would be covered by it irrespective of the fact that whether she became widow before or after acquiring the property.
15. A statute is to be understood in accordance with the plain meaning of the language used therein. Narrower construction which would fail to achieve avowed purpose of legislation shall, as a rule, be avoided. Nothing shall be added or be taken out from a statute to assign a meaning, which, ex facie, is not the intention of the legislature. The conclusion, therefore, would be that a widow can claim the benefit of section 14, if at the time of filing the application she was widow, and was the owner of the property in question.
16. Mr. Ismail Padhiyar also contended that the notice, as required under section 14 of the Ordinance, was not served upon the appellant and it being so, the eviction application was not maintainable. The respondent, in her affidavitin-evidence, clearly stated that the appellant managed not to receive the notices dated 28-9-1989 and 20-10-1989 and got them returned to the respondent. In cross-examination of the respondent, a suggestion was given to her by the learned counsel for the appellant that she had sent those notices to one 'Ghaffar'. The respondent explained that it may be typing mistake, but the address was the same. Thus, it is evident that the appellant had the knowledge about those notices. Besides, in the memo. Of appeal no ground has been taken regarding said notices.
17. In consequence, I do not find any merit in this appeal, and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost. The appellant, however, is allowed four months' time to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question c the respondent. If the possession of the premises is not handed over to the respondent within the aforesaid time, the writ of possession would be issued without notice to the appellant.