' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners herein, under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seek leave to appeal against judgment dated 25-9-2000 of a learned Judge in Chamber, High Court of Sindh, whereby order dated 30-5-1998 of Second Rent Controller, Karachi, Central, passed in Rent Case No, 829 of 1993, evicting the petitioners from the premises in question was upheld.
2. The respondents, who are minors, are the owners of the plot bearing No,R-529, Block No,15, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi, measuring 120 sq. Yards, with a single storey building constructed thereon, having purchased the same from its previous owner namely Syed Zahid Hussain, through sale- deed dated 12-8-1992. A shop was carved out from the area of said plot, hereinafter referred to as "the premises", which is the subject-matter of this petition. Petitioner No,1 is a tenant of the premises since July, 1988, through an agreement dated 23-7-1988, executed between him and the previous owner. After purchasing the premises, the respondents sent a notice of intimation under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter called "the Ordinance", to the petitioner No,1 on 12-9-1992. The respondents filed eviction application, against the petitioners on the grounds of their bona fide personal use and subletting. It was alleged that their father was already running the business of decoration and the same was to be expanded by starting catering services also, as such, the premises was required for their personal bona fide use.
3. On the ground of subletting, it was alleged that petitioner No,1 was serving in Saudi Arabia since long and had sublet the premises to the petitioners Nos.2 and 3, who were running their own business.
4. The petitioners resisted the claim of the respondents and denied assertions made in the eviction application.
5. Learned Rent Controller settled the issues arising from the pleadings of the parties and allowed eviction application on the grounds of personal bona fide use and subletting. Aggrieved by above order, petitioners preferred appeal before High Court, which was dismissed and the finding of learned Rent Controller on both above pleas was maintained. In section 2(g) of the Ordinance, personal use has been defined as under:- ' 'personal use' means the use of the premises by the owner thereof or his wife (or husband), son or daughter;"
' Section 15 of the Ordinance provides the grounds on which the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant. Subsection (2)(vii) of section 15 reads as under:- ' "the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children."
6. It is contented on behalf of the petitioners that findings of learned Rent Controller and High Court on both above points are contrary to the material available on record and against the provisions of the Ordinance as well. Learned counsel argued that the Ordinance laid down the specific categories of persons for whom proceedings on the ground of personal need could be initiated i.e, the landlord or his wife (or husband) or son or daughter and not the parents of the landlord.
Counsel submitted that in the case in hand, it was requirement of father of respondents for whom eviction was sought. On the point of subletting, it is contended that it was never proved and that the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were not allowed to explain their point of view.
7. As regards first ground, it is significant to note that eviction application was filed by the respondents on the ground of their personal bona fide use. It is specifically mentioned in para. 5 of it that they "need the shop in question in good faith for their own use". It is true that, it was also mentioned therein that their father was to expand his business by starting the catering service but it was in context to their personal need and could not be read without reference to the main assertions in the application. There is concurrent finding of Rent Controller and High Court on this point which is in consonance is the material brought on record.
8. Even for the sake of arguments if it is assumed that eviction was sought to meet the requirements of their father, yet, on that ground also the eviction could be ordered. Learned Rent Controller in his order cited the case reported as Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Naeem Khan and 2 others (PLD 1983 Peshawar 118), which was under West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, wherein it was held that a minor could seek eviction of tenant from the premises for use of his father. Learned counsel for the petitioners was fair enough to cite the case reported as Mohiuddin Ansar v. Muhammad Arif Siddique (1991 CLC 72 Karachi) authored by Mr. Justice Saleem Akhtar (as he then was), wherein section 15(2)(vii) of the Ordinance was interpreted with reference to the words "his own occupation" and it was concluded that "that need of the parents of the landlord will be the need of the landlord provided the parents resided with the landlord". Learned counsel argued that both above cases are distinguishable in the way that the former was under a different ordinance and the latter though under this ordinance, but is on the point of use of residential building.
9. We have thoroughly examined above-quoted provisions of law and the two cases referred to above.
10. We are of the 'view that the words "in good faith for his own occupation or use" appearing in above-quoted section 15(2)(vii) need liberal interpretation. It is not the words of any statute but its spirit that makes the law meaningful. The spirit of law gets precedence over a hypertechnical reliance upon statutory provisions. Liberal construction permits to extend the meaning of a statute, provided it continued to remain within the spirit or reason of the law for which it was enacted. The existing law provides the benefit of above-quoted provisions to the spouse of the landlord or any of the children. Conversely, it is silent about the need of the parents. Therefore, the words "in good faith for own occupation" can be interpreted to include the requirements of the parents also.
11. Accordingly we hold that the premises can be required m good faith for the parents also.
12. So far as the plea of the subletting is concerned, it is noted that admittedly the petitioner No,1 for the last 16/17 years is employed in Saudi Arabia and is residing there. Ex facie, it is a case of subletting. Learned Rent Controller mentioned that neither petitioner No,2 nor petitioner No,3 appeared in Court to give any evidence. Also, it has been noted in said order that the matter was fixed for final arguments on 23-8-1995, 14-9-1995 and 29-9-1995, when at last-mentioned date above-referred petitioners filed their affidavit in evidence with a prayer to proceed afresh in terms of section 19 of the Ordinance. This application was dismissed and rightly so, by the Rent. Controller, as obviously it was to prolong the proceedings. There is concurrent finding on this point, which also does not warrant any interference.
13. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and petition is dismissed. The petitioners, however, are granted 4 months time from now for handing over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents. In case above order is not complied with, the writ of possession shall be issued against petitioners without notice to them with police aid if necessary.