1989 PLP 260 (CLC)

In the instant case the appellant has not only produced sanction of the competent authority namely the Municipal Committee but has also produced the construction plan duly approved by the said Committee. In my opinion the intention of the appellant expressed by him in his ejectment application that he needed the premises for reconstruction coupled with production of aforesaid documents should be sufficient to prove that the appellant needed the premises for reconstruction. Regarding 1987 C L C 574, reliance is placed on the following observations in case No.3047/1982 quoted in the said judgment and reproduced as under‑.‑ As already stated in the above authority of Supreme Court PLD 1983 SC 342 the landlord has got a right to convert his commercial building into residential building by way of reconstruction. The landlord will not be bound to provide to the tenant a shop from his house. Even otherwise it is not the requirement of law that the landlord should get an agreement of tenant. In this case it is not practicable for the applicant to provide the shop to the opponent after reconstruction of building. This condition could be imposed upon applicant landlord if he reconstructs the same type of premises. In these circumstances the applicant will not be obliged to provide any shop to the opponent tenant after its reconstruction. So far as the first two cases are concerned, it is b now settled law that the landlord is not bound to prove his bona fides for reconstruction. In fact, the law has been changed. Previously under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as provided in section 13(2)(vi) it was necessary to prove that the building or rented land was required reasonably and in good faith by the landlord for the reconstruction or erection of a building on the site. As regards the third case it was filed for bona fide personal use and reconstruction both. It appears that the said case of Messrs Servis Industries went up in appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court, as reported in 1986 S C M R 637, which was dismissed as the claim of the landlord requiring the premises for reconstruction was held to have been established. On the other hand Mr. Wahid Bux Baloch, learned counsel for the respondents placed his reliance on Moinuddin v. Bashir Ahmed 1987 C L C

472. Reference was made to the following paragraph:‑ It is an admitted position that the respondent filed an eviction application on the ground of personal requirement for residential purposes and not for commercial purposes. In the case of Seth Girdharilal v. Mst. Mariza Bano and another P L D 1963 Quetta 251, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Mahmood, J held at page 29, It appears to me that what is contemplated in subsection (3)(a)(ii) is that non‑residential building can be claimed by the landlord in super-session to the right of the tenant to continue using it if the landlord requires the building for the purpose of his business and not when he requires it for residential purposes. Since not only no evidence has been led by the respondents that they wanted the building in question for the purpose of their business but had not even averred that they required the building for their personal use in connection with their business, I hold that the learned Rent Controller and, for that matter, the lower Appellate Authority were right in recording their findings on issue No.l in favour of the respondent. In the case of Jamil Ahmad v. Mst. Sultana Jehan Begum P L D 1974 Kar. 319, Mr. Agha Ali Hyder, J, has come to the conclusion after giving cogent reasons that a non‑residential building cannot be directed to be given in the possession of the landlord for residential purposes of his own. I am in respectful agreement with these decisions of Mr. Nazir Ahmed Mahmood and Agha Ali Hyder, JJ. for the reasons given by them in the above two decisions and as such I am of the opinion that the non‑residential buildings or shops cannot be directed to be given in the possession of the landlord, for residential purposes of his own, his wife or children. In the said case the application for ejectment was made on two grounds, namely, the grounds of reconstruction and personal use. The Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, as its preamble shows, has been enacted to make effective provisions for regulation of relations between landlords and tenants and protect their interests in respect of rented premises within urban areas. Section 13 provides that no tenant shall be evicted from the premises in his possession except in accordance with the provisions of the said Ordinance. Section 14 of the Ordinance provides for delivery of vacant possession to the landlord who is a widow or is minor whose both parents are dead or is a salaried employee due to retire within the next six months or has retired or is a person who is due to attain the age of sixty years within next six months or had attained the age of 60 years. Section 15 lays down a number of grounds on which ejectment l of the tenant can be sought by the landlord on one or more of them the section reads as under:‑

15. Application to Controller‑‑(1) Where a landlord seeks to evict the tenant otherwise tan in accordance with section 14, he shall make such application to the Controller. (2) The Controller shall, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises within such period as may be specified in the order, if he is satisfied that: ‑ (i) the tenancy has ceased to be valid under section 6; (ii) the tenant has failed to pay rent in respect of the premises in his possession within fifteen days after the expiry of the period fixed by mutual agreement between the tenant and landlord for payment of the rent, or in the absence of such agreement, within sixty days after the rent has become due for payment; (iii) the tenant has, without the written consent of the landlord (a) handed over the possession of the premises to some other person; (b) used the premises for the purpose other than that for which it was let out; infringed the conditions on which the premises was let out: (iv) the tenant has committed such acts as are lixely to impair the material value or utility of the premises; (v) the tenant has indulged in such activities as are causing nuisance to the neighbours; (vi) the premises is required by the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a new building at the site and the landlord has obtained necessary sanction for such reconstruction or erection from the authority competent under any law for the time being in force to give such sanction; (vii) the landlord requires the premises in good faith for his own occupation or use or for the occupation or use of his spouse or any of his children. (3) Where the landlord who has obtained the possession of the premises for the purpose of reconstruction of the building or erection of a new building, he shall demolish the existing building within six months of the taking over of the possession of the premises or, as the case may be, commence the erection of the new building within two years of the taking over of the possession of the premises, and in case the landlord fails to demolish the building as aforesaid, the tenant shall be entitled to be put into possession of the premises and for the purpose he may apply to the Controller for an order in that behalf. (4) Where the landlord constructs the building as aforesaid the tenant who was evicted from the old building may, before the completion of new building and its occupation by another person, apply to the Controller for an order directing that he be put in possession of such area in the new building as does not exceed the area of the old building of which he was in occupation and the Controller shall make an order accordingly in respect of the area applied for or such smaller area, as considering the location and type of the new building and the needs of the tenant, he deems just and on payment of rent to be determined by him on the basis of rent of similar accommodation in the locality. The scheme of the Ordinance in so far as it provides for grounds for eviction of tenants under section 15, other than tile grounds mentioned in section 14, makes it necessary that the Rent Controller must be satisfied about the grounds on the basis of the evidence produced before him. In so far as the grounds mentioned in clauses (vi) and (vii) are concerned there have been added subsections (3) and (4) to further safeguard the interests of a tenant. Subsection (3) provides that in case the landlord who has obtained the possession of the premises for the purpose of reconstruction of the building or erection of a new building, fails to demolish the existing building within six months of the taking over of the premises or as the case may be commence, the erection of the new building within two years of the taking over of possession of the premises and in case the landlord fails to demolish the building as aforesaid, the tenant shall be entitled to be put into possession of the premises and for the purpose may apply to the Controller for an order in that behalf. Subsection (4) of the said section also provides that where the landlord constructs the building as aforesaid, the tenant who was evicted from the old building may before the completion of new building and its occupation by another person, apply to the Controller for an order directing that he be put in possession of such area in the newt building as does not exceed the area of the old building of which he was in occupation and the Controller shall make an order accordingly in respect of the area applied for or such smaller area, as considering the location and type of the new building and the needs of the tenant, he deems just and on payment of rent to be determined by him on the basis of rent of similar accommodation in the locality, as added by Sind Ordinance VI of 1984. The purpose underlying subsections (3) and (4) in relation to clause (2) ~;vi) seems to be that in the case where the application for ejectment has been filed only on the ground of reconstruction, the plan must conform to the needs of the tenants as well, because; they may claim re‑induction into possession after reconstruction, unless the eviction has been sought not only on the ground of reconstruction but on the ground of personal use of the landlord or his children as well. There is no ground pleaded by the appellant for bona fide personal use which, in the circumstance he should have taken. It may be stated that the grounds for reconstruction of the building as well as personal bona fide requirement of the landlord for use of that building after reconstruction are not mutually destructive. Reliance may be placed on Khaliq‑ur‑Rehman v. Ameeruddin N L A 1986 A C F 14, by a learned Single Judge of this Court (as he then was) who in turn seems to have relied on the case of Messrs Amir Din Allah Ditta v. Seth Adamjee Abdullah anal others 1969 S C M it

131. For the above-said reasons, I find no force in the appeals which are dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Before parting with the matter, it may be added that this judgment will not be a bar to the appellants to file fresh application for eviction of the respondents on the grounds of (i) reconstruction of the building on the basis of the plan they have produced in Court, and (ii) their bona fide personal use, as provided in sub‑clauses (vi) and (vii) of subsection (2) of section 15 of the Ordinance. A.A. / A‑444 / K . Appeals dismissed.