2026 PLP 950 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UD-DIN MENGAL, J.

Since common question of law and facts is involved in the F.A.Os. Nos. 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of 2025 filed by the appellant against the order dated 27 March 2025 passed by learned Civil Judge-II/Rent Controller, Quetta ("the trial Court/Rent Controller"), whereby separate eviction applications under Section 13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 filed by the appellant against the respondents have been rejected. Thus, all the appeals are being decided through this common judgment, while facts and law pertaining to all the appeals are similar, as such, there is no need to draw the facts of each appeal separately.

2. Relevant facts arising out of the instant appeals are that the appellant (applicant) filed separate eviction applications under Section 13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the respondents in the Court of learned Civil Judge-II/Rent Controller, Quetta with the averments the appellant is owner of property bearing Khasra No.350, Kehwat No.137, Khatooni Vol 169, Mutation No.958, measuring 1220 sq. ft., situated at Ward No. 18, Tappa Urban No.1 (Masjid Road), Quetta, whereupon a market with name and titled as "Rabia Market" is constructed. The respondents are tenants in Shops ("shops in question"). Originally, the property belonged to the appellant's mother namely Mst. Khalida Nasreen, who successfully established her ownership through civil litigation, culminating in affirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Thereafter, the property was lawfully transferred in the name of appellant through Mutation No.958. It is also averred that the shops in question had been rented out to the respondents in the decade of 1990s by the appellant's maternal uncle namely Abdul Jabbar, on the monthly rent of Rs. 130/-, who was managing the property on behalf of his sister (appellant's mother). The appellant, being now owner and landlord, sought eviction on the ground of personal bona fide requirement and reconstruction of the existing market. Upon refusal by the respondent, he approached the Rent Controller.

3. Initially, the application was allowed, vide Ex-parte order dated 9th December, 2022; however, upon respondent's application, the same order was recalled with consent of the parties and the case was reopened.

4. After framing of issues and recording of evidence from both sides, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application, vide impugned order dated 27th March 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that ownership of the appellant is undisputed and the relationship of landlord and tenant stands admitted through rent deposit proceedings before the learned Senior Civil Judge-1, Quetta; that the learned Rent Controller has failed to appreciate that once the landlord's title and need are established, the Court cannot substitute its opinion regarding the landlord's convenience.

6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the plea of bona fide requirement is mala fide, as the appellant's sons are already engaged in business elsewhere and no municipal sanction for reconstruction was obtained.

7. Arguments heard. Relevant record perused.

8. The minute scrutiny of record transpires that the appellant filed separate applications for eviction before the learned Rent Controller, wherein mainly contended that appellant is owner of property bearing Khasra No.350, Kehwat No.137, Khatooni No.169, Mutation No.958, measuring 1220 sq. ft., situated at Ward No. 18, Tappa Urban No.1 (Masjid Road), Quetta, whereupon a market with name and titled as "Rabia Market" is constructed. Initially, the property in question belonged to his mother namely Mst. Khalida Nasreen, who successfully established her ownership through civil litigation and the same remained affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Subsequently, the property was transferred in the name of appellant through Mutation No.958. Besides, the shops in question had been rented out to the respondents since the year 1990 by the appellant's maternal uncle namely Abdul Jabbar, on the monthly rent of Rs.130/-, who was managing the property on behalf of his sister (appellant's mother). In the meanwhile, the appellant/landlord approached the respondents/tenant to vacate the shop in question, as he is intended to reconstruct/renovate the plaza as well as the same is required for his bona fide use to settle his children and nephews, but the respondents/tenants refused to do so.

9. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: "ISSUES:

1. Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and respondent?

2. Whether the shop No.14, Rabia Market Quetta (shops in question) is required to the applicant for his personal bona fide need for the business purpose of his sons and nephews?

3. Whether the shop in dispute is required by the applicant for demolishing and reconstruction along with other shop of the building being one unit?

4. Whether the applicant is entitled for the relief he claimed for?

5. Relief?"

10. The plain reading of record reflects that the ownership of the subject property stands established through Mutation Nos.373 and 958, duly exhibited as Exh. A/4-1 and Exh. A/S-A, showing transfer of title from Mst. Khalida Nasreen (mother of appellant) to the present appellant. The Fard-e-Intikhab (Exh. A/5-B) further corroborates his ownership. Even otherwise, the respondents, while deposing as RW admitted that he has been depositing rent in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge-1, Quetta, in the name of Abdul Jabbar and that such rent was withdrawn by the present appellant through order dated 6th September 2019. Once rent is paid or deposited on behalf of the landlord and withdrawn by him under Court's permission, the relationship of landlord and tenant stands proved.

11. It is an admitted position that the appellant sought eviction of the tenants from almost all shops of Rabia Market, such conduct explicitly shows that the appellant intended to vacate the entire building and reconstruct it into a new commercial plaza, rather than to occupy few shops for personal use. Thus, the case of the appellant does not fall within ambit of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Ordinance (personal bona fide need), but squarely falls under Section 13(2)(vi), which provides as under: "The building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for the reconstruction or erection of a building on the site, and the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for the sald reconstruction or erection from the Town Improvement Trust, Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee or Town Committee for the area where such building or rented land is situated. The Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land, and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application." Since the intention of legislature is very much clear from the bare perusal of the relevant provisions of Section 13(2)(vi) of the Ordinance of 1959, which makes it obligatory for the owner/landlord of the building to obtain necessary sanction for the said reconstruction or erection from the Municipal Corporation, the Municipal Committee, the Town Committee or the Provincial Urban Development Board, as the case may be, at the time of filing of eviction application or even during its pendency.

13. Moreover, the statutory requirement under the ibid proviso explicitly shows that before seeking eviction for reconstruction, the landlord must demonstrate good faith and reasonableness of the requirement and also to produce the necessary sanction or approval from the competent municipal authority. While, in the appeals in hand, the appellant has failed to produce any sanction for reconstruction during trial. As such, the learned Rent Controller rightly dismissed the petitions for want of compliance with the mandatory provision. However, the omission to produce the sanction is not necessarily fatal to the entire claim, as the defect is curable. The spirit of justice demands that where the landlord's intent appears bona fide and capable of legal compliance, an opportunity should be afforded to remedy the deficiency rather than non-suiting the party altogether.

14. The above principle implies that the sanction may be produced before the Rent Controller to satisfy the statutory requirement. Since the ownership of the landlord is not disputed rather during pendency of the appeals, several opportunities were sought by both the sides with contention for amicable settlement outside the Court and even otherwise, per the learned counsel for appellant, the landlord is ready to grant a time of one year to the tenants for eviction of shops in question. Thus, the proper course would be to remand the to afford the appellant an opportunity to obtain and place such sanction on record.

15. In view of the above discussion, while the learned Rent Controller correctly held that the appellant's case fell under Section 13(2)(vi) and that absence of municipal sanction rendered the eviction petitions defective, the dismissal of all petitions without allowing the appellant an opportunity to fulfill this legal requirement was not in consonance with the principles of substantial justice. Accordingly, these consolidated appeals are partly allowed and the impugned order dated 27th March 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge-II/Rent Controller, Quetta, is set aside and the appeals are remanded to the learned Rent Controller with the directions to afford an opportunity to the appellant/landlord to obtain the necessary sanction/approval for reconstruction from the Municipal Committee, Quetta; upon production of such sanction, the learned Rent Controller shall re-evaluate the eviction applications in light of Section 13(2)(vi) of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; besides, both parties shall be permitted to lead additional evidence, if so desired and the Rent Controller shall decide the matter afresh within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this judgment, strictly in accordance with law. MQ/140/Bal Case remanded.