APPEAL UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE SINDH RENTED PREMISES ORDINANCE, 1979



APPEAL UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE SINDH RENTED PREMISES ORDINANCE, 1979 SAMPLE


BEFORE THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE KARACHI (SOUTH) 
First Rent Appeal No. /2013 

Mehwish Shah w/o Haider Shah, Muslim, Adult, r/o Flat No. A-12, Bilal House, situated at Plot No. VI, Sohail Society, Shaheed-e-Millat Road, Karachi. ------------------------------- APPELLANT 

VERSUS

1. Saad Ahmed s/o of Ilyas Ahmed, 

2. Sajjad Ahmed s/o Saad Ahmed, 

3. Muhammad Jameel, s/o NOT KNOWN, All Muslims, Adults, Residents of Karachi, Occupying, as Tenant and Sub-Lettee respectively, shop situated on Plot No. A-1217/2, admeasuring 8*25 square feet, Block ‘A’, North Nazimabad, Karachi. 

4. The Learned VIIth Rent Controller Karachi (South) ------------------------------- RESPONDENTS 

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE SINDH RENTED PREMISES ORDINANCE, 1979 

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order dated 29/01/2013 passed by the Respondent No. 4 herein, in Rent Case No. 2020/2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order), whereby the Rent Application filed by the Appellant under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) was allowed without acknowledging the Appellants claim of personal bonafide need, the Appellant prefers this Instant Appeal to the extent of her personal bonafide requirement, on the following, amongst others, facts and grounds: 
                            (Certified Copy of Impugned Order dated 29/01/2013 is attached as Annexure “‘A-1”)

FACTS 

1. That the Appellant is the owner of two shops situated on Plot bearing No. A-1217/2, Block ‘f’, admeasuring 115 square yards, North Nazimabad, KDA Scheme No. 3, Karachi by virtue of Sale Deed dated 02/09/1995. That out of the two shops under the absolute and exclusive ownership of the Appellant, one Shop admeasuring 8*25 square feet (hereinafter referred to as the “said premises”) is in the occupation of the Respondent No. 2, after the said Respondent took over possession of the same from the Respondent No. 1, his father, who was at that time running a butcher shop in the said premises. That the monthly rate of rent for the said premises was fixed at Rs. 9, 000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) per month. 

2. That the Respondent No. 2, without consent of the Appellant, converted the butcher shop into a shoe store under the name and style of M/s New Shoe Point without obtaining the prior written permission and consent of the Appellant, as required under the Ordinance, and hence, committed addition and alterations to the Said premises, whereby the utility of the Said premises was compromised. 

3. That the Appellant served a Legal Notice dated 09/03/2008 upon the Respondents, which Legal Notice was refused with endorsement “NOT HOME”. That the Appellant repeated service through another Legal Notice dated 10/05/2008, which was duly served upon the Respondent No. 2, and received by one Shahid on 12/05/2008. However, the Respondent No. 2 deliberately avoided responding to the said Legal Notice and instead of acknowledging the legitimate and legal rights of the Appellant in the said premises, the Respondent No. 2 continued to further the additions and alterations in the Said premises, whereby rendering himself liable to be evicted from the same. 

4. That the Respondent No. 2 further, without intimating the Appellant and / or obtaining her written consent, handed over possession of the said premises to the Respondent No. 3 and further confirmed his status as a defaulter by subletting the property, which is against the intention of the Landlord-Tenant relationship, as set out under the Ordinance. Since that time, the Respondent No. 3 has enjoyed the illegal possession of the said premises and is running a business therein. 

5. That the Respondent No. 2, in addition to the above stated illegalities, also deliberately and wilfully defaulted in the payment of monthly rent for the Said premises since May 2004, which monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 9, 000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) per month. That since the other shop owned exclusively by the Appellant was being utilized by her under the name and style of M/s Shahid & Sons Fashions, and since the Appellant was seeking to extend her business and accommodate her father and brother, the Said premises was required by the Appellant for her personal bonafide need and the legitimate use for commercial purposes by her. 

6. That given the circumstances, the Appellant was compelled to file Rent Case bearing No. 2020/2009 before the Respondent No. 4, which was duly admitted on 24/09/2009 and notices were issued to the Respondents No. 1 to 3. However, the Respondent No. 1 failed to appear before the Learned Trial Court and hence, was debarred from the proceedings. The Respondents No. 2 and 3, however, filed detailed Written Statements. 
                        (Certified copies of Rent Case No. 2020/2009 and Written Statements are filed herewith as Annexure “A-2”, “A-3” & “A-4” respectively) 

7. That thereafter, the Learned Trial Court was pleased to frame / settle the following points for determination of the case on merits: 

a. Whether there exist any relationship of Landlady and Tenant between the Applicant and the Opponent No. 2 in respect of the said premises? 
b. Whether the said premises are required by the Applicant in good faith for personal use of her father and brother? 
c. Whether the Opponent No. 2 has committed default in payment of rent? 
d. Whether the Opponent No. 2 has sublet the said premises to the Opponent No. 3, illegally and without consent of the Applicant? 
e. Whether the Opponents have made additions and alterations in the said premises, without consent and permission of the Applicant? 
f. What should the order be? 

8. That subsequently Affidavits in Evidence were filed by all the parties barring the Respondent No. 1 and detailed and elaborated evidence, on the basis of pleadings and documents, was led by the Learned Trial Court, where after recording the same, the Learned Trial Court was pleased to find in favour of the Appellant with the exception of Point (ii), as settled for determination by the Learned Trial Court. 
                        (Certified copies of Affidavits in Evidence are attached herewith as Annexure ‘A-5’, ‘A-6’ & ‘A-7’ respectively) 

9. That the Learned Trial Court, as already stated above, was pleased to allow the Application filed under Section 15 of the Ordinance by the Appellant declaring that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 were wilful defaulters in payment of monthly rent since May 2004, had altered the utility of the said premises without seeking the consent of the Appellant and had sublet the said premises to Respondent No. 3 without obtaining approval from the Appellant. However, the Learned Trial Court was, however, pleased to dismiss the Appellant’s plea for personal bonafide use of the said premises by her. That given the settled principles of Law and equity, as enunciated throughout with regards to the personal need of an owner, the findings of the Learned Trial Court on the said issue is without reason and in derogation of the pronouncements of the Apex Court and hence, there being no other efficacious remedy, the Appellant prefers the Instant Appeal on the following grounds, amongst others: 

GROUNDS 

I. That the Judgment passed by the Learned Trial Court, to the extent of dismissing the Appellant’s claim of personal bonafide need is illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal consequence. 

II. That the Learned Trial Court has failed to judiciously apply its mind to the settled principles of Law, in as much, the statement made by the Appellant regarding her personal bonafide need has gone unchallenged and/or unshaken, assuch, the Learned Trial Court under the circumstances was bound to adjudicate upon the said point in the affirmative. 

III. That the Learned Trial Court has committed a gross error and has misread the evidence so aptly produced by the Appellant with regards to her personal bonafide need. The Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Appellant has sought the Said premises for her personal bonafide need in order to extend a profitable commercial venture that was already being run by the Appellant in a shop adjacent to the Said premises, as such, the version of the Appellant to such extent has gone unshaken. 

IV. That the Learned Trial Court has wrongly interpreted Section 15 (2) (vii) of the Ordinance, in as much, the application of such interpretation is not attracted to the case as made out by the Appellant. The Appellant has categorically sought possession of the said premises for her own personal bonafide need, whilst vaguely touching upon the point that extension of her profitable commercial venture into the said premises will afford her an opportunity of accommodating her father and brother. However, the Learned Trial Court has erroneously misinterpreted the evidence produced on such point and has wrongly concluded that the Said premises is being sought for by the Appellant for her father and brother’s personal need. 

V. That, without prejudice to the Appellants right and whatever has been stated above, it is submitted that exercising absolute and exclusive proprietary rights, titles and interests in the Said premises, it is the legally acquired discretion and prerogative of the Appellant to utilise the Said premises in whatever way acceptable and required by her, within the bounds as settled by Law, as such, the Impugned Order suffers from an excessive exercise of jurisdiction by the Learned Trial Court.

VI. That the Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Appellants statement on oath regarding use of the said premises for her bonafide personal need has not been seriously challenged and since the same is consistent with the case as pleaded by the Appellant before the Learned Trial Court, same should have been accepted on its face value and should have been given due weight. 

VII. That the instant Appeal has been filed within time prescribed by law. VIII. That the Appellant, with the permission of this Hon’ble Court, craves leave to urge and argue any other points that may arise subsequently at the time of hearing of this Appeal. 

PRAYER 

It is, therefore, in the interest of justice, good conscience and equity prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be pleased pass the following orders: 

a. Modify the Impugned Order dated 29/01/2013 passed in Rent Case No. 2020/2005 to the extent of acknowledging the Appellant’s right and privilege to personal bonafide need over the said premises. 

b. Grant any other, better, further and/or equitable relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit, proper and necessary given the prevalent facts and circumstances in the instant lis. 

c. Costs of the appeal may be awarded.

K A R A C H I                                                      (SAJID MIR)

Dated 00.00.0000                                  Advocate for the applicant

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this is a first application u/s appeal u/s 21 of sindh rented premises ordinance 1979 and no such application of same nature has been preferred by undersigned on behalf of the present applicant.

K A R A C H I                                                      (SAJID MIR)

Dated 00.00.0000                                  Advocate for the applicant

  • Document(s) filed: Annexure ‘A-1 to A-7’ 
  • Document(s) relied upon: Annexure ‘A-1 to A-7’ and all other documents that are necessary and relevant to the subject matter.
Update cookies preferences