1985 PLP 324 (MLD)

The respondent filed ejectment application against the appellant in respect of shop on Plot No. 5/296 Liaquatabad, Karachi, on the ground that he requires the disputed shop for construction of a new building at the site. According to the respondent plan for construction of building was sanctioned by the Sind Building Control Authority on 19-1-1982. In the application it was also alleged that the appellant has defaulted in payment of rent which was denied by the appellant. The issue relating to default was not pressed however, on the basis of evidence on record the learned Controller by the impugned order granted the application holding that the premises is required by the respondent for reconstruction. Mr. M.S. Khatri the learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the sanctioned plan which is the basis for seeking ejectment was valid for a period of one year and has expired. He has further contended that according to the regulation of Building Control Authority, the plan would not be renewed till such time the landlord reaches a settlement with the tenant. To substantiate this plan the learned counsel for the appellant wanted time to produce evidence to show that such a regulation has been enforced and this is the policy of the Building Control Authority. Mr. Arif Hussain the learned counsel for the respondent, on query stated that after .the sanctioned plan had expired the respondent has submitted it to the relevant authority for revalidation which has not vet been validated by the Authority. The contention of the appellant is that according to law he has a right in the newly) constructed building and further that as the plan is admittedly awaiting revalidation by the Sind Building Control Authority, the respondent is not in a position to start construction. At the moment I do not think that it is necessary to lead evidence to establish that any new regulation has been enforced under which the plan will be revalidated. Such evidence is not necessary for determination of the real controversy between the parties. The plan is still awaiting revalidation and the respondent cannot start construction unless it has been revalidated, which will be accorded in terms of the rules and regulations framed by the authority. It isr well-settled that expiry of the validity of plan during pendency of the ejectment application cannot be treated as a ground for rejection of the application. Mr. Arif Hussain the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent is prepared to provide to the appellant such accommodation in the new building which he is entitled under law. As the appellate Court can take note of subsequent events, in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, in the interest of justice it would be proper that the order of ejectment should be executed by the respondent after the plan has been revalidated. The learned Advocate for the appellant has not pressed any other objection against the validity and legality of the impugned order. Toe appeal is, therefore, dismissed subject to the condition that the impugned order of the Controller shall not be executed by the respondent till such time the respondent produces in Court alongwith the execution application, a duly revalidated plan issued by the Building Control Authority or any ether authority competent to sanction such plan. Mr. Arif Hussain has no objection to the imposition of such a condition. It may also be mentioned that as the respondent has obtained ejectment on the ground of reconstruction of the building, the appellant will be entitled to all rights which he can claim in the new building according to law. H. B. T. Appeal dismissed: