2012 PLP 571 (MLD)

SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.

By way of this judgment Second Rent Appeals Nos.82 and 83 of 2010 are proposed to be disposed of as common questions of law and facts are involved in both appeals.

2. Both appeals are directed against judgment dated 7-11-2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Pakpattan whereby the ejectment order dated 25-11-2008 has been upheld.

3. The respondent-bank claimed the ejectment of Muhammad Zafar and Nazir Ahmad from the plots rented out to them on the ground of default in the payment of rent and personal need. It is narrated therein that the bank wants to open a new branch over the disputed property, which is suitable to its need. The petition was resisted by the respondent on the ground that earlier the ejectment petition of the bank was dismissed upto this Court. On merits, it was asserted that the bank does not need the property in dispute for its own use and occupation. Both the Courts disagreed with the contention of the appellants and held that the premises were required by the bank for establishing a new branch.

4. Parties heard and record perused.

5. It is noticed from the record that earlier ejectment petition was filed by the respondent-bank on the ground of subletting, which did not find favour with the Courts below and the matter was finally settled by this Court through judgment dated 14-5-2004 recorded in S.A.O. No.40 of 2000. It is noticed from the available record that in that petition the ground of personal need was not taken as such the fresh petition on the said ground is not barred by principle of res judicata. The other argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent did not get sanctioned the plan for constructing the branch of the bank, is without substance for the reason that it is not essential for a landlord to get sanctioned the site plan prior to the filing of the ejectment petition, which act can be performed after having the vacant possession of the disputed property. However, it adds to bona fide of the landlord if a plan is got sanctioned before filing the ejectment petition, but it is not a condition precedent for filing an ejectment petition on the same ground. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that section 5-A of the Punjab Urban, Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case as the plot was rented out to the appellant, which cannot be treated as non-residential building and the enhancement of rent as envisaged by section 5-A (ibid) is only applicable to the buildings mentioned in section 2(d) of the Ordinance, 1959. This argument of the learned counsel has been examined in the light of the definition of 'rented land' provided in section 2(e) and 'non-residential building' defined in section 2(d). From the perusal of both these definition the purpose of both these sections in respect of the business activities is evident. 'Non-residential building' has been defined as 'a building being used solely for the purpose of business and trade' while the definition of 'rented land' has been defined as 'any land let separately for the purpose of being used principally for business or trade.' From the definition it has become definite that the provisions do not relate to the residential building, which has separately been defined in section 2(g) of the Ordinance. The Legislature had enacted two separate provisions in respect of 'non-residential building' and 'rented land' to meet with the future needs of the landlords otherwise the intention is that the rented land also included in the definition of non-residential building as only commercial activities could be undertaken in both the cases and the site cannot be used for residential purpose unless it is covered by section 2(g) of the Ordinance. Viewing these provisions of law it is noticed that the appellant is using the property in dispute for trade and business purpose and thus for that purpose his case squarely covered within the meaning of non-residential building. The appellants have installed Ara machine at the premises, which is a kind of business and a trade. It is not the case of the appellant that they are using the property in dispute for residential purpose and that they have not raised any structure on the vacant plot. So the provisions of section 5-A of the Ordinance, 1959 are squarely applicable in the instant case. The appellants never paid the enhanced rent when it has become due against them, thus they clearly defaulted therein. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the contention has distinguishing features from the facts of the instant case as such not applicable directly. The Courts below after properly appreciating the evidence on the record had drawn right conclusion for passing ejectment order against the appellants, which findings being unexceptional are liable to be maintained.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals having no merits are dismissed with costs. H.B.T./M-395/L Appeals dismissed.