Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15,15(2)(vii),15-A

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 12(2)

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 181

Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section: 182

Summary

This Supreme Court judgment addresses whether a tenant, evicted on the ground of the landlord’s personal bona fide need under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (SRPO), can seek restoration of possession if the landlord fails to occupy the premises for personal use within one year, as provided under Section 15-A of the SRPO. The case involved a tenant (appellant) who was evicted after the landlord claimed personal need but later alleged the landlord did not use the premises for personal occupation and instead handed it to others. The Rent Controller initially restored possession to the tenant, but this was reversed by the appellate court and upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the interpretation and application of Section 15-A, emphasizing that the law protects tenants from eviction on false grounds of personal need and that landlords must genuinely occupy the premises within one year or face penalties and possible restoration of possession to the evicted tenant.

(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)---

----S. 15-A---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 181---Restoration of possession---Limitation---Principle of laches---Applicability---Grievance of appellant/tenant was that after seeking her ejectment from the premises on basis of personal need, the respondent/landlord did not utilize it for his bona fide personal need---Rent Controller allowed the application of appellant/tenant and ordered to restore possession to her but Lower Appellate Court and High Court declined to interfere in the ejectment order---Validity---Tenant cannot be given an unlimited period of time to apply under section 15-A of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Period of one year cannot be construed as a period of limitation for tenant to apply but such right cannot be extended indefinitely at the leisure of tenant---Such application should be preferred within a reasonable period of time and it is for Rent Controller to decide whether the application is hit by laches rather than applying limitation period as provided under residuary Article 181 of First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908---Supreme Court directed to restore possession of premises to appellant/tenant and set aside the orders passed by High Court and Lower Appellate Court---Appeal was allowed.

Words and Phrases (West Publishing Co.) Vol. 18A, (Permanent Edition, Pages 84-85); Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, John S. James, (Volume 2, page 1172); Law Terms and Phrases (Judicially Interpreted, Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mokal) Page 416; Venkataramaiya's Law Lexicon and Legal Maxims [2nd Edition, Page 942 (1986)]; Oxford. Dictionary of Law [Elizabeth A. martin 2022 Ed.], Page 328; Merriam Webster. Merriam Webster. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/good%20faith]; Legal Information Institute [Cornell Law School] [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good faith]; Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst.