1987S5 (PLP)

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑The petitioners in this petition for leave to appeal were tenants in a shop situate in Usmania Bazar of Pind Dadan Khan under Haji Allah Dia, respondent No.

3. On 10‑5‑1983 Haji Allah Dia moved an application seeking their ejectment before the Rent Controller on three grounds namely, that they were defaulters in the payment of rent ; that he needed the shop for personal need of his sons and that the shop was in a dilapidated condition and he wanted to reconstruct it. The learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of default but accepted the pleas of personal need and reconstruction. Accordingly he directed their ejectment. The petitioners went in appeal before the Additional District Judge. Apparently the ground of default in the payment of rent was no longer pressed by respondent No.

3. However, that may be, after a reappraisal of the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge held that the plea of personal need was not proved but that respondent No. 3 did require the shop for reconstruction. Accordingly; he maintained the order of ejectment. The petitioners challenged the order of ejectment in writ jurisdiction in the High Court. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the writ petition after finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the shop was required by respondent No. 3 in good faith for the purpose of reconstruction.

2. While repelling one of the contentions of the petitioners the learned Single Judge in his order referred to a judgment of this Court reported as Ghulam Muhammad v. Maqsood Ahmad (1984 S C M R 1142) wherein it was held that a landlord seeking ejectment of his tenant on the ground of reconstruction was no longer required to prove that he needed the premises for that purpose reasonably and in good faith. This view was based entirely on the assumption that there had been a change in the relevant law. It is to be noticed that the plea of reconstruction is founded on the provisions of clause (vi) of section 13 (2) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance which reads as follows : ‑ "the building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a building on the site and the landlord has obtained necessary sanction for the said 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." In January 1978, the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 1 of 1978) was promulgated. It substituted the clause with the following new clause :‑ "the building or rented land is required by the landlord for the construction or erection of a building on the site and the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for the said reconstruction or erec tion from the local authority competent to sanction reconstruction or erection for the area where such building or rented land is situated." It will be seen that in the substituted clause the words `reasonably and in good faith' were omitted. It was solely for this reason that in Gltulam Muhammad's case this Court took the view as stated above. It is regrettable that the learned counsel who appeared in that case did not care to point out that the Amending Ordinance did not come into force immediatelv on its promulgation but was to take effect only upon the issuance of a notifica tion by the Governor. The requisite notification was never issued by the Governor. On the contrary, in September 1979, lie promulgated another Ordinance (No. IX of 1979) whereby the Amending Ordinance of 1978 was repealed. Thus, the substitution of clause (vi) never took effect. Therefore, the legal position continues to remain the same that is, a landlord seeking ejectment of his tenant on the ground of reconstruction has to plead and prove all the requirements of clause (vi) as they existed prior to promulga tion of the Amending Ordinance of 1978.

3. Now taking this petition on merit. the question whether the shop was required for the purpose of reconstruction by the landlord reasonably and in good faith, was one of fact. The landlord led evidence to show that the shop was in a poor state of repair. He also produced a copy of the plan approved by the local Town Committee for the reconstruction of the shop. The learned Additional District Judge and the Rent Controller accepted this evidence and recorded a finding in favour of the landlord. This concurrent finding could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The High Court, therefore, acted properly in not interfering with the order of ejectment.

4. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. s. Q. Petition dismissed.