1994 PLP 45 (CLC)

Kamaluddin for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th July, 1993. This First Rent Appeal has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Rent Controller in Rent Case No. 593 of 1980 whereby he had ordered the ejectment of the present appellant on the ground of requirement 'of the landlords for demolition and reconstruction of the premises. Briefly the facts are that the applicants in the said Rent Case being owners of shop constructed on premises No.G‑2407‑I Phuleli Bazar, Hyderabad had filed the said rent case on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction. The present appellant contested the matter and filed his written statement wherein it was pleaded that the application has been made with mala fide intentions as the present respondents did not require the premises for the purpose as claimed by them; and that the respondent No.l was not the owner of the premises. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Rent Controller settled the two points for determination, firstly, if there was a relationship of landlord and tenant and secondly, if the applicants require the premises for demolition and reconstruction. Both the applicants filed their own affidavits‑in‑evidence while the opponent/present appellant also filed his affidavit‑in‑evidence. Applicant Abdul Razzak was cross‑examined while applicant Mst. Salina could not be cross‑examined and, therefore, her affidavit‑in‑evidence has. to be discarded from consideration. However, on the admissions of the present appellant, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did exist. This point is not challenged before me during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, the counsel for appellant has pressed that the respondents do not require the premises for reconstruction and this is a malicious ground taken by them for ejectment of the appellant. He has referred to the previous Rent Case No. 132 of 1979 which was filed by the present respondent No.2 on the ground of default and personal requirement which was withdrawn. Thereafter the present rent case was filed and subsequent to this another Rent Case No. 740 of 1980 was filed on the ground of causing damage to the premises. This third rent case was also withdrawn by respondent No.2. However, the record shows that permission has been obtained by the present respondents from Hyderabad Development Authority under Sindh Building Control Ordinance from the Building Control Authority which is produced in evidence as Exh.13. They have also produced approved site plane as Exh.14 which shows that the present . respondents intend to construct a double‑storied building in place of the existing structure which would contain about 12 shops on the ground floor, whereas admittedly there are only three shops in the said premises at present. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller had rightly allowed the rent case of the present respondents and I do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings of the Rent Controller. ??????????? The present appellant has also moved a Miscellaneous Application (C.M.A. No. 150/92) whereby he has sought permission to file certain documents as additional evidence. The said documents show that subsequent to the orders passed by the Rent Controller, there was Gift Deed executed by present respondent No.l who has transferred his portion of the disputed premises to his wife and son while through an agreement to sell, the respondent No.2 has transferred her portion to one Haji Abdul Shakoor. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that since the very owners of the premises have been changed, the cause of action would not survive. It may be observed that these two documents do not mention the number of the property involved to be 6.2407/1 as involved in the rent case but the number and the area differs. However, even if the same be taken to .be the same yet these transfers would not effect the rights which accrued to the landlords at the time of filing of the rent case. However, Mr. Kamaluddin, the learned counsel for? the respondents states that the alleged agreement of sale in favour of Haji Abdul Shakoor by respondent No.2 is a forged agreement; and that a civil suit was filed by the said Haji Abdul Shakoor on the basis of this agreement to sell which suit has already been dismissed on 28‑2‑1991. According to Mr. Abdul Hameed Siddiqi, Advocate for appellant an appeal had been filed which was also dismissed. In these circumstances, I do not find any relevance in these documents. The application is accordingly dismissed. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is dismissed with costs. The appellant will hand over the vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the respondents within 30 days from the date of this order. H.B.T./N‑491/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed