P L D 1990 Lahore 451 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑ Regln. 96(4) ‑‑‑ Regulation 96(4) has been incorporated for the benefit of the owners of adjoining properties and not for the tenants. (e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Art. 199 ‑‑‑ Constitutional petition ‑‑‑ After the announcement of the order of dismissal of petition in limine counsel for the petitioner came forth with the submission to grant him permission to withdraw the petition ‑‑‑ Such a belated prayer was not granted. Qamar‑uz‑Zaman for Petitioner. Sh. Muhammad Munir, petitioner is a tenant under respondent No.3, in Property No.S‑94‑R‑3, Chowk Chauburji, Multan Road, Lahore, let out to him for residential purposes. The landlord has got a building plan sanctioned from the L.D.A. for construction of a new‑building which will be a commercial building. This sanction order is sought to be dubbed as illegal, as being violative of section 11 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which prohibits conversion of residential building into commercial building without written permission of the Rent Controller.

2. I have heard the learned counsel in some detail. His reliance on section 11 is ill‑founded for more than one reason. According to counsel's own showing the existing building shall be completely demolished and a new building as per sanctioned plan, erected in place thereof. The existing residential building thus shall completely disappear and there would be no question of its conversion into a commercial building. It seems to me that when an existing building is completely demolished and replaced by a new one, it would be innocuous to extent section A 11 to such a situation. Further, section 46 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 expressly provides that in the event of conflict between the said Act and the provisions of any other law, the provisions of the Lahore Development Authority Act to the extent of such inconsistency, would prevail. Thus, even if there is any conflict in the provisions of two Statutes the Lahore Development Authority Act would override section 11.

3. The learned counsel then laid hand on the preamble of Rent Restriction Ordinance in an effort to enlarge the scope of section 11, which stands encompassed by its language couched in unambiguous terms. This attempt, however, is quite idle for two reasons; firstly, upon the language of the Preamble the Ordinance has been enacted to arrest the increase of rent of certain premises. Secondly, the settled rule is that the preamble is a key to the Statute to offer a clue to its scope if the words used therein, when construed without aid of the preamble; are capable of more than one meaning. There should be no doubt that the preamble cannot extend, control, qualify or add to the Statute when it is expressed in clear words. Section 11 has been expressed in clear language which does not suffer from any ambiguity. Reference to Preamble is thus, of no avail to the petitioner.

4. As his last submission, the learned counsel endeavoured to make some capital out of the Regulation No.96 of the Lahore Development Authority Building Regulations, 1984 formulated in pursuance of Section 45 of the Act and read out sub‑para (4), thereof which necessitates approval of the Director General of the Authority to change from 'residential' to 'special commercial' of the properties abutting on Gulberg Road, Main Boulevard in Gulberg, New Garden Town, New Muslim 1 own and Allama lqbal Town and other areas subjected to conversion of use. Such approval may be granted by him on production of certificate from the owners of the adjoining properties. It needs to be seen that Chauburji Chowk where the property in dispute is located, is not included within the areas described in sub‑para. (4) ibid and it has not been shown that this locality was subjected to conversion of use by the L.D.A. In any case this provision has been incorporated in the Regulations for the benefit of the owners of the adjoining properties, but the petitioner is merely a tenant. The learned counsel's reference to Regulation 96, appears to me a self‑defeating exercise. It is to be noticed that under sub‑para 5(a) Chauburji Chowk has been included within the area described therein as "general commercial areas".

5. Despite the ingenuity of the counsel's argument, coupled with his ability to present his case before the Bench I do not feel persuaded to permit this petition to survive limine hearing. After the announcement of the order the learned counsel came forth with the submission to grant him the permission to withdraw the writ petition. But, such a belated prayer does not merit consideration. Dismissed in limine. M.B.A./M‑2216/L Petition dismissed.