2010 PLP 591 (CLC)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.

This single order shall decide the present petition Writ Petition No.1708 of 2008 and connected petitions Writ Petitions Nos.1709 of 2008, 1710 of 2008, 17111 of 2008, 1712 of 2008, 1713 of 2008, 1714 of 2008, 1715 of 2008, 1716 of 2008, 1717 of 2008, 1718 of 2008, 1719 of 2008 and 1720 of 2008 emanating of the same cause, containing an identical legal proposition and similar facts.

2. The respondent No.1/landlord filed an ejectment petition qua the disputed property. The petitioner/tenant contested the same by filing written reply, of the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, they were put to trial, the petition, thereafter allowed. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, hence the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the whole edifice and structure of the petition is based upon the ground of reconstruction of the disputed premises, according to the learned counsel under section 13(6)(iv) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in case the ground of reconstruction is pleaded, it is mandatory and incumbent upon the landlord, to place on record incontrovertible evidence, to establish reconstruction, which, inter alia, includes sanctioned plan. In the present matter, no such sanctioned plan or allied document has been placed on record, therefore, both the Courts below erred in law by giving an affirmative findings in favour of the landlord. To fortify his contentions the learned counsel referred to following precedents:

Muhammad Sharif Khan and 9 others v. Chaudhry Karamat Hussain and another 2001 MLD 175, Rashid Brothers v. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan 1981 SCMR 782, Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1981 Lah. 694, Qamar Din v. Mrs. K. Taleh Begum 1980 SCMR 608, Newalram v. Messrs Ismail Brothers 1980 CLC 915.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent contested the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner, to plead, that a site plan has been duly submitted to the Town Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi, which could not progress, due to the fact that a suit was filed by the petitioner against this sanctioned plan and injunctive relief was obtained therein. It also is floating on record that the building is over 100 years old and is in a dilapidated condition, to crown this, the concerned authority has issued demolition notice to the respondent and threatened punitive action, in case of non-compliance, therefore, according to him the impugned order of ejectment is unexceptionable. He referred the following precedents to support his cause:

Muhammad Ibrar v. Muhammad Ikram 2004 CLC 157, Hafiz Altaf Ahmed v. Haji Ahmed Din 2005 CLC 1758, Hamayun etc. v. Mst. Namwar Khatoon and others 2005 CLC 446, Muhammad Sharif Khan and 9 others v. Ch. Karamat Hussain and another 2001 MLD 175, Nasim Ahmad Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 4 others PLD 2006 Lah. 774, Muhammad Saleem Akhtar v. The Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Rahimyar Khan and others 2005 MLD 867, Muhammad Umar v. Muhammad Sultan Siddiqui (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others 2005 YLR .145, Qamar Din v. Mst. K. Taleh Begum 1980 SCMR 516, Mst. Amina Begum and others v Mehar Ghulam Dastagir PLD 1981 Lah. 694, Haji Abdullah and 10 others v. Yahya Bakhtiar PLD 2001 SC 158, Jameela Peer Bakhsh and 11 others v. Appellate Authority under Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959/Additional District Judge, Lahore and 3 others 2001 CLC 975, Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others PLD 2007 SC 45, Hanif and others v. Malik Ahmed Shah and another 2001 SCMR 577, Rashid Brothers v. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan 1981 SCMR 782 and Kewalram v. Messrs Ismail Brothers 1980 CLC 915.

5. Heard.

6. The learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments to issue No.3, which is reproduced for reply reference:-- "Whether the property in question is badly deteriorated and is liable to be demolished and the same is dangerous for human life, therefore, the applicant is entitled to vacate the same? OPA." Thereafter, they adverted to the effect and ramifications of section 13(6)(iv) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 in this context. A bare reading of the statute and the section referred to clearly bestows upon the Rent Controller, the authority to initiate appropriate action in accordance with the said provision and grant ejectment petition on this ground, if pleaded. The test, however, in this context has been spelt out and the broad parameters defined in a number of precedents, which include filing of an application to the relevant authority, seeking reconstruction. In the present matter, the evidence tendered by the landlord/respondent clearly reflects that the building is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition. There is no controversy to this effect as even the deposition made by the respondent affirms that the building is more than 100 years old, it was specifically pleaded in the petition and accepted in reply thereto. It stands established on record that Town Municipal Committee, has already issued a notice for demolition, declaring the building to be dangerous for human habitation, it also is floating on record that the respondent made hectic efforts to obtain NOC from the TMC, but his efforts could not yield the desired result, because the tenants filed a suit for permanent injunction, and obtained an injunction; that site plan be not sanctioned, it was due to these circumstances that requisite sanction plan etc, could not be obtained for reconstruction of the building. There is ample evidence on record to hold that the order of the Rent Controller and the lower appellate Court are in consonance with evidence tendered, especially, the deposition of A.W.I, qua reconstruction. Further section 13(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, takes care of the situation itself, and holds, that if the building is not demolished within the period of four months from taking of possession of the same, or the building is not reconstructed within a period of two years, punitive action can be initiated against the landlord, further section 13(5)(a) also bestows upon the Rent Controller the power to restore possession to the ousted tenant. In these circumstances the right of the tenant stands adequately protected in law and therefore, on this Court as well, the impugned judgment and order are unexceptionable. As far as the precedents cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they are distinguishable on facts and evidence tendered and hence of no consequence. Thus, for what has been stated above, this petition has no merits and is dismissed. M.U.Y./P-30/L Petition dismissed.