CASE LAW.
S.14---See Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979),S.2(a).
Ref. 1998 SCMR 2114.
---S.14---Bona fide personal need of landlord---One of the co-landlords or one of the co-owners can seek ejectment on the ground of his personal requirement.
1998 S C M R 348.
---S.14---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958, S.30---Transferee of big mansion which had not been partitioned--- Bona fide personal need of such transferee for his personal need was not competent till the properties were partitioned---Cases for ejectment on the ground of default by tenant by such transferees were, however, competent and the ejectmen5t order, if any, would be for the benefit of all the transferees and not for the exclusive benefit of the transferee applicants.
1998 S C M R 348.
---S. 14--- Widow, though she may not be the sole owner of a tenement and may be a co-owner, can seek ejectment under S.14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
1998 S C M R 348.
---S. 14 [as amended by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1980)]----Applicability of S. 14 of the Ordinance---Provision of S. 14 of the Ordinance would be applicable to persons who have attained age of sixty years before promulgation of the Ordinance viz. Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. 1979.
1997 S C M R 494.
---S. 14 [as amended by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1980)]----Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine the nature, extent and scope of S. 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as originally enacted and as substituted by Ordinance XII of 1980.
1997 S C M R 494.
---S. 14 [as amended by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1980)]----Effect of amendment made in S. 14, the Ordinance---Provision of S. 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980---Scope of S. 14 of the Ordinance after amendment has been widened and even those category of persons who other wise in view of old provision could not have invoked S. 14 of the Ordinance were entitled to exercise such right subject to limitation provided by the substituted S. 14 of the Ordinance.
1997 S C M R 494.
---S. 14 [as amended by Sindh Rented Premises (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1980)]----Original S. 14 and amended S. 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 by ---Comparison --- Original S. 14 of the ordinance provided that landlord who was due to attain age of 60 years within the next six months or who had attained the age of 60 years within the next six months or who had attained the age of 60 years could claim ejectment of tenant---Provided that it would not apply in a case where more than six months had elapsed after the retirement or attainment of 60 years by the landlord---As a result of amendment of S. 14, however, any landlord who had attained age of 60 years and after the accrual of right under S.14, has rented out the building, he would be deprived of the remedy provided under S.14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
1997 S C M R 494
---S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Alteration in terms of tenancy---Effect---No new tenancy was created by mere alteration of terms of tenancy---By acceptance of rent every month either under the agreement of tenancy or under the Ordinance, existing tenancy remains in operation and does not make way for new tenancy every month.
Ref. 1997 S C M R 494.
---S.14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Whole deposition of landlord should be read in the light of pleadings of parties---When objection was raised in written statement about the availability of one vacant shop, landlord had explained in his affidavit-in-evidence that he had not rented out adjacent shop lying vacant with him for the reason that he proposed to use both shops to run his business---Land lord when confronted with the publication of advertisement, admitted factum of advertisement be explained that it was inadvertently got published by his cousin without his permission and it was not acted upon as the shop was still with him and had not been rented out---Requirement of land lord was, thus, bona fide and in support thereof, sufficient evidence of satisfactory nature was produced by him---Ejectment of tenant on such ground thus, correct and valid.
Ref. 1995 S C M R 212(b).
---S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court should not have set aside order of dismissal of ejectment application passed by Rent Controller for the reasons that requirement was not bona fide in view of admissions by landlord in his deposition to the effect that one shop (out of two) was lying vacant with him and advertisement was published in newspaper to have that shop rented out.
Ref . 1995 S C M R 212(a) .
---S. 14---Personal bona fide need of landlord ---landlord required shops for running the business of bars and cement ---Three shops were required for storing the material while fourth shop was to be used as an office---Courts below had accepted requirement of landlord---Concurrent finding of fact hat landlord required all the four shops to run his business were recorded by Courts below---No misreading of evidence was pointed out---Ejectment of tenants had been correctly ordered by Courts below.
Ref. 1995 S C M R 201
---S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan((1973), Art. 185 (3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether in view of the fact that landlady was in possession of residential accommodation on the top floor of the same building, could she peress into service aSs14 of the Ordinance to seek eviction o0f tenant for. commercial premises.
Ref. 1994 S C M R 913(a).
---Ss.14 & 15---Application under S. 14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for summary eviction of tenant from a commercial premises on the ground that landlady who was ailing person, had attained the age of 61 years and was living with her crippled son on the top floor of the same building and they both found it inconvenient to reside at the top floor---Landlady also in her application for ejectment after describing her age, illness and physical deformities of her son stated that she need tenement on the ground floor for her personal use and that of her son and both of them would do small business also---Pleadings of the parties showed the controversy whether need of the landlord was bona fide and some evidence was also produced on that aspect of the matter but no issue was framed ad to whether relief could be invoked under S. 15 or not---Held, there was legal impediment in the way of Rent Controller to frame an issue to the effect whether in the circumstances of the case S. 14 or 15 of the Ordinance was attracted---Sections 14 & 15 of the Ordinance though contained two separate causes of action, filing of ejectment application under one would not debar the land lord from seeking relief under the other---Intention of the parties was to contest eviction under Ss. w4 14 &15 together and two Courts below were not right in holding that landlady was entitled to eviction under S.14 without assessing evidence on the question of bona fides or mala fides of the need---Evidence brought on record was not properly assessed and was not adequate to justify order of eviction under S. 14, Supreme Court set aside the findings of the two Courts below and remanded the case to the Court of Rent Controller for adding issue to the effect whether landlady was entitled to eviction under S.15 also and also for deciding the case afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to produce further evidence if they so desired.
Ref. 1994 S C M R 913 (b).
---S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Landlord, an employee was to retire on 13-11-1986, on attaining age of sixty years---Notice for ejectment of house was to be sent by landlord to tenant on or after 13-5-1986 but said notice was sent to tenant on 14-4-1986 i.e. one month earlier---Courts below by dismissing landlord's ejectment application had acted in consonance with law, thus, no exception could be taken to the judgments of Courts below, which were maintained in circumstances.
Ref. 1993 S C M R 1652 (c)
.---S. 14---Constitution of Pakistan 91973), Art. 185(3)---Ejectment of tenant---Petitioner instead of serving notice six months prior to his due date of retirement from service, served notice upon tenant one month earlier i.e. on 14-4-1986---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider, whether ratio of the case of Hasan Askari Rizvi (PLD 1989 SC 1) was applicable or that of the case of Wali Muhammad v. Mst. Hameeda Bai 1983 SCMR 191 and whether Courts below were justified in non-suiting petitioner on the ground of having served notice one month earlier than the requisite date, though admittedly Rent Controller had decided rent case on 31-8-1991.
Ref. 1993 S C M R 1652(a).
---S. 14 (1)---Non-service of notice in accordance with provision of S. 14(1), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Effect---Notice was sent by landlord on 14-4-1986, though he was due to retire on 13-11-1986 i.e. about one month prior to due date which was to fall on or after 13-5-1986---Date when notice in question, was sent by landlord to tenant, landlord did not fall within categories of specified landlords given in S. 14 (1), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Landlord, thus, had no cause of action to send notice in question, on 14-4-1986.
Ref. 1993 S C M R 1652 (b).
---S14.---Bona fide personal requirement by landlord---Landlord's bona fides, although could not be investigated,. yet the real purpose for which eviction was sought did not militate against bona fide personal requirement and same could be allowed to be pressed. requirement and same could be allowed to be pressed.
Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158(d).
---S.14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in view of admitted position that landlord wanted 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 tenants' out-houses was proposed to be left vacant whether landlord could seek possession under S.14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158(a).
---S.14---Ejectment application under S.14 of the Ordinance when not maintainable---One of the most important ingredients of S.14 of the Ordinance being that premises from which tenant was sought to be effected should be required for the personal use of the landlord, tenant's ability to show other wise would result in dismissal of such application of ejectment.
Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158(f).
---S.14---Ejectment on ground of reconstruction independent of S.14of Ordinance XVIIOF 1979---Effect---Where ejectment was sought on ground of reconstruction independent of provision of S.14, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and according to the approved plan even if such premises were in the open space of new building, same could not be a ground for refusing ejectment for new construction was to made according to the approved plan and so long as the area occupied by the existing and disputed premises was covered by such plan either as a built up area or open space, no such objection could be raised.
Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158(e).
---S14---Landlord's requirement of premises for demolition of building and after reconstruction occupation of same for personal use---Validity---Pleas of reconstruction and personal use were not mutually destructive to each other.
Ref. 1992 S C M R 1158(c).