1999 PLP 2451 (YLR)

I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case record carefully. In the present case eviction of the appellant is sought under section 15(2)(vi) of the Ordinance, therefore, it will be advantageous to reproduce the same as under: "15(2). The Controller shall, snake 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) . (ii) . (iii) . (a) . (b) . (c) . (iv) . (v) . (vi) the premises is required by the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a new building at the site and 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) . From a plain reading of this provision of law it is clear that for availing the benefit of clause (vi) of section 15(2) of the Ordinance the satisfaction of the Rent Controller is required only to extent that the landlord requires such building for reconstruction and has obtained necessary sanction for reconstruction or erection of new building at the site from the competent Authority at the relevant time. In the present case a perusal of the case record reveals that the respondent, in his rent application, has specifically pleaded that he wants to erect a new multi‑storied building at site for which he has obtained necessary sanction for reconstruction and erection of such building from Sukkur Municipal Corporation, Sukkur and has also got approved building plan from the said authority. At the stage of evidence the respondent has also produced in Court such original approved plan and permission of reconstruction as Annexures "B" and "C" to his affidavit in. evidence and in his cross -examination genuineness or validity of these two documents has been not even questioned by the appellants. In addition to this out of the five appellants, who have filed their affidavit in evidence in this case and have entered into the witness‑box for their cross- examination, two of the appellants viz. Wahid Khan and Muhammad Aslam have submitted such claim of the respondent in their cross examination in the following words: "It is fact that the disputed premises are required by the applicant for reconstruction and erection of new building and the applicant has obtained necessary construction plan and approval from S.M.C., Sukkur, for reconstruction." 'It is fact that the applicant did not want to sell the disputed premises'. 'It is fact that the applicant has got the construction plan and its approval from M.C. Sukkur for reconstruction of disputed property' . " These facts available on the case record are sufficient to conclude that the respondent has not only fully complied with the requirement of clause (vi) of section 15(2) of the Ordinance for seeking eviction of the appellant from the disputed property. but there is also nothing against him on record to show that his claim is not bona fide. Besides, to safeguard the interest of a tenant, the Legislature has already taken sufficient care by insertion of subsections (3) and (4) to section 15 of the Ordinance which reads as under:‑‑‑ (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 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 that purpose may apply to 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 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." A bare reading of these two subsections of section 15 of the Ordinance makes it clear that in both eventualities, one where a landlord seeks eviction on the ground of reconstruction but fails to demolish the building or commence, erection within the time frame provided by law and the other where a landlord reconstructs the new building at the site, a tenant has been provided a right of reinduction in the building in terms of these subsections. Perhaps it is for this reason that in a case where the eviction of a tenant is sought on the ground of reconstruction, the owner/landlord of the building has been relieved from the responsibility of showing his resources for raising such new building at site or explaining any future prospects, benefits or utility of such new building etc., when no such intention or condition spells out from the language of the relevant provisions of the Ordinance same cannot be superimposed by the Court. The case of Mst. Zareen and another v. Muhammad Nawab and 3 others (1992 MLD 1690) referred by the respondent's counsel is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, while the case‑law referred by the learned counsel for the appellants has no relevance to the facts of the present case as none of these decisions relate to a case under clause (vi) to section 15(2) of the Ordinance. The impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is based on proper appreciation of evidence, it is in accordance with law and, therefore, the same is maintained. For the preceding reasons, this appeal and the listed C.M.A. 58 of 1996 were dismissed by a short order, dated 31‑5‑1999. Q.M.H./M.A.K./W‑28/K Appeal dismissed.