1984 CLC 2096 (PLP)

S. 15 Ejectment on ground of reconstruction Bona fid=s of landlord Landlord receiving notices from Karachi Corporation and Karachi Development Authority for demolition of building as condi tion of same was dangerous Held : Documentary evidence coming from public bodies about ruinous condition of building sufficient to establish bona fide need for reconstruction and very difficult to believe that owner of building would want to pull down his building if same was really in a good state Fact that funds could be easily available from commercial banks, other loan giving authorities and interested persons not supported plea that landlord had no funds for reconstruction. ORDER The respondents are owners of the building known as Baharistan Building on Plot No. 15, Survey Sheet No. T. L. 2, Tahilram Quarters, Napier Road, Karachi. The said building is in occupation of the present appellants on rent of Rs. 80 per month. The respondent intended to reconstruct the building and a building plan was sanctioned by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, on 6th February, 1978. Thereafter this plan has been renewed periodically, but at present the last date of renewal has expired. The respondent filed the present case for ejectment of the appellants on ground that the building was bona fide required by them for reconstruction. In addition, the respondents have placed on record several notices to show that the building, which is the subject-matter of this appeal, is in a dan gerous state. The first document on that point is a notice by the Karachi Meteropolitan Corporation, dated 10th July, 1977 (Annexure `F') directing the demolition of some portion of the building on the ground that it was not fit for habitation. The second document is a notice from the Karachi Development Authority, dated 14th March, 1981 (Annexure `G') stating that one room adjacent to the stairs and the roof of the main passage of the building were in ruinous condition and should be removed. The other document again a letter from the Karachi Development Authority, dated 2nd June, 1982 (Annexure `L') states that the entire building was in ruinous and dangerous condition and should be pulled down. The respondents also examined, Maqsood Baig, who stated that the building was dangerous and not fit for human habitation so that it was likely to collapse at any time. In the written statement, however, the appellants had stated that the build ing was `not so dangerous' and was not likely to fall. On the other hand, Mst. Khursheed Begum, the attorney of the appel lants, had stated in her evidence that the respondents did not sincerely in-tend to reconstruct the building, for they did not have sufficient funds. She denied that the building was in dangerous condition, but no evidence was produced to that effect. I have heard Mr. Mehar Hussain Mesawa, and perused the record. Since, I am of the view, that this appeal does not merit to be admitted, I have not thought it fit to give any notice to the respondent, because that will only prolong the litigation and burden him with unnecessary costs. Mr. Mehar Hussain Mesawa has raised the following points : (i) That the building is not dangerous ; (ii) That the respondents did not bona fide intend to reconstruct the building ; and (iii) That the sanction for reconstruction has expired. As far as state of building is concerned, three documents have been' placed on the record by respondents and each one of these documents is from a public authority and states that building was in dangerous condition. On 1 the other hand, it would be very difficult to believe that owner of the build ing would want to pull down his building if it was really in a good state. Nothing has been shown which might cause a suspicion on the correctness of the three certificates which have been produced. With regard to the contention that the respondents did not bona fide intend to reconstruct the building the case set up by the appellants was that the respondents did not have funds. It is common knowledge that funds could be easily obtained by a person for construction of a building not only from the House Building' Finance Corporation, but even from commercial banks and sometimes from persons who in anticipation of obtaining tenancy in the building advance money. This contention has also no I force. The point that the sanction for reconstruction has expired, is sought to be enforced by a letter from the Karachi Development Authority, to the respondents, dated 4th March, 1983 (Annexure `K'). This letter reads as follows: "With reference to your letter, dated 13th February, 1982 on the above subject-matter it is to inform you that entire building should be de molished first with the permission of the Authority. After that the renewal of building plan will be considered." The above letter would indicate that the re-validation of the plan was not refused but had been deferred until such date that the building could be demolished. It seems that Karachi Development Authority was aware of the liligation concerning ejectment and they took the view that the respondents should apply for re-validation after they secure the order of ejectment. In fact the reconstruction plans have already been approved and repeatedly the date for construction has been extended. Perhaps, the Karachi Development Authority took the view that periodically extensions were meaningless unless the building has been vacated, or until the building was vacated, no reconstruction was possible. In the circumstances, it cannot be said ' that reconstruction had been refused moreso as the Karachi Development Authority had issued notice for demolition of the building on the ground that it was in dangerous and ruinous state. I am of the view that the judgment in this case is eminently correct and requires no interference. This appeal is dismissed in limine. M. B. A. Appeal dismissed. ***