1988 PLP 1570 (MLD)

This Judgment will dispose of the following appeals as common question of law and facts are involved in all of them. (i) F.RA. No.981 of 1986 (Mariam v. Ghulam Abbas through his Lrs). (ii) F.R.A. No.982 of 1986 (Muhammad Siddiq v. Ghulam Abbas). (iii) F.R.A. No.983 of 1986 (Juma v. Ghulam Abbas). (iv) F.RA. No.984 of 1986 (Fakir Muhammad v. Ghulam Abbas). (v) F.RA. No.985 of 1986 (Noorbai v. Ghulam Abbas). (vi) F.RA. No.986 of 1986 (Khamisa v. Ghulam Abbas). (vii) F.RA. No.987 of 1986 (Sakina Bai v. Ghulam Abbas). (viii) F.RA. No.988 of 1986 (Fakir Muhammad v. Ghulam Abbas). (ix) F.R.A. No.989 of 1986 (Fakir Muhammad v. Ghulam Abbas). (x) F.R.A. No.990 of 1986 (Ibrahim v. Ghulam Abbas). (xi) F.R.A. No.991 of 1986 (Hussain & 5 others v. Ghulam Abbas).

2. The respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest filed application for ejectment under section 15(2)(vi) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the appellants on the ground that the various tenements in possession of the appellants are required by the respondents for the purpose of demolition and construction of a new building on the entire land measuring 2,295 sq.yds., out of which approximately more than 1800 Sq.Yds. is in possession of the said appellants. Admittedly the respondents have obtained the necessary sanction for the erection of the building on the aforesaid plot from competent authority, i.e. Building Control Authority, constituted under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 vide Letter No.BCA/PCB‑VII (Property) 379‑81‑5527 dated 10‑8‑1981 issued by the Deputy Controller of Buildings, Master Plan and Environment Control Department, K.DA., Karachi. The fact of bona fides is established by the production of the sanctioned plan and the offer of the respondents to re‑induct the appellants after reconstruction of the building, in accordance with law. Reliance is, however, placed by Mr.Shafaat Hussain, learned counsel for respondent on the cases reported as (1) Muhammad Akbar and another v. Dr.Muhammad Rafique etc. 1980 S C M R 483, (2) Muhammad Raghib v. Messrs Services Industries Ltd. and another 1984 C L C 1 and (3). Ghulam Jilani v. Syed Aftab Ahmed 1982 C L C 1743. 3. (i) In 1980 S C M R 483, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the production of approved plan is necessary. The Court is only to be satisfied as to the plan produced being a genuine sanctioned plan as required by law. (ii) In 1984 C L C 1, a learned Singles Judge of this Court observed that the mala fides or bona fides of the landlord cannot be gone into in a case of requirement of plot for reconstruction. (iii) In 1982 C L C 1743, a learned Single Judge of this Court, relying on D.B. decision of the Lahore High Court reported in P L D 1972 Lah. 711, on the question of expiry of sanction of plan observed that the expiry of sanction during the pendency of Court does not frustrate the cause of action nor renders the application for ejectment as infructuous.

4. I may also refer to a recent case reported in November, 1987 Part of the S C M R as Abdul Aziz v. Rent Controller and others 1987 S C M R 2074, relevant portion whereof reads as under:‑ "It may be observed once again that as far as reasonableness of the decision to reconstruct the building in question is concerned it is the owner of the building who is in the best position to determine whether, despite the fact that the building is relatively recent or the structure thereof is quite firm, he would like to renovate or reconstruct it so as to make it commercially more beneficial for him. Moreover, as has been observed in the aforementioned judgments, the very fact that he is willing to spend huge amount of money on the reconstruction and to subject himself to the risk of penal action contained in section 13(5) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, it must be assumed that he is acting bona fide."

5. In view of the above law, the impugned orders of the learned Rent Controller do not suffer from any infirmity.

6. However, the learned counsel for the parties agree that in F.RA. No.981 of 1986 Mst.Mariam widow of Soomar will be provided with a shop on the ground floor and other 10 appellant's will be provided residential flat one each on the first C floor in the newly constructed building on payment of rent to be determined by the learned Controller, after the building is reconstructed, in accordance with law.

7. Since the sanction of the plan expired during pendency of the ejectment applications/appeals learned counsel for the respondent undertakes to get it renewed before the actual ejectment of the appellants from their respective premises.

8. The appeals, in result, are dismissed, in circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./M‑497/K Appeals dismissed.