Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.15---If a room or two on the ground floor were converted into shops any rented out, it would not mean that the building had turned to be a non-residential building---Premises, to all intents and purposes were still residential premises. Moinduddin v. Master Bashir Ahmad 1987 C L C 472 and Abdul Malik v. Haji Ejaz Ahmed 1985 S C M R 1555 ref. Zaheeruddin for Appellant. Muhammad Akmal Wasim for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th April, 1990. JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-4-1989 whereby the appellant tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises and to hand over its possession to the respondent. The facts of the case are that the respondent is the owner and landlord in respect of House No.R-161/18, Customs Cooperative Housing Society, Federal `B' Area, Karachi which is built on a 120 sq. yards plot and contains two rooms and two shops on the ground floor. One of the shops was rented out to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.100 vide rent agreement dated 20-1-1970. The rent was later on enhanced to Rs.175 per month. The appellant is running a Medical Store under the name of Bilal Medical Store in the demised premises. The respondent had sought the ejectment of the appellant on the sole ground of his personal requirements and his case is that he had rented out the demised premises when he was a bachelor and when he did not require much accommodation but subsequently he married and had five daughters and now the accommodation available in the house was proving insufficient for his growing requirements. The respondent had even asked his younger brother, who was earlier living with him, to shift to some other place because of the shortage of the accommodation. The appellant tenant resisted the ejectment application and in his written statement he claimed that the landlord was in possession of three rooms and that, notwithstanding the fact that he had five daughters, the accommodation in his possession was sufficient for his requirements. The appellant further Mated that when he took on rent the demised premises in 1970, the area was not commercially developed but now it…