1994 PLP 84 (MLD)

By this order I will dispose of this appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act filed by the appellant/tenant Anwar-ul-Haq against his landlady Mst. Jameela Begum in which the appellant has impugned the order, dated 4-5-1991 passed by the learned Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi in Rent Case No.30 of 1989 directing eviction of the appellant from A-15/4, Dehli Colony, Bazar Area, Karachi within 45 days thereof. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is liable to be evicted under the provisions of section 17(2)(vi) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act which reads as follows:

"Landlord who intends to demolish the building for constructing a new building on the same site and has already obtained necessary sanction for such construction from the Cantonment Board can apply for eviction." The available evidence on record is firstly the legal notice dated 19-2-1989 sent by the respondent to the appellant stating as follows:

"That it is to point out to you that the entire property is in a dilapidated condition and mere repairs to the same would not beneficial in any manner whatsoever, unless the entire property is reconstructed. It is to point out to you that the condition and situation of the entire building is reported to be dangerous, risky and unfit for human habitation including your portion which is a matter of record. So it is in your own interest that you should made alternative arrangement as early as possible in order to avoid any inconvenience of life due to the bad and dilapidated condition." Identical notice was sent on 1-3-1989 by the respondent to the appellant. Another piece of evidence brought on record is the notice received by the respondent from the Additional Cantonment Executive Office, Clifton Cantonment stating that the building is in dilapidated condition for want of sufficient repairs and as such is considered dangerous to passerby and persons dwelling in or working in the neighbourhood and further requiring her immediately to demolish or repair the building so as to render it safe for the occupants, passerby and dwellers and to avert any threat to human life and property. In the said notice it was further stated that the office reserved right to resort to demolition of the said building under the Provisions of section 256 o' the Cantonments Act, 1924 with her risk and costs in case she fails to take action within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. The respondent instead of carrying out repairs elected to file ejectment application against the appellant. It is pertinent to note that the ground for eviction of tenant as envisaged under section 13(2)(vi) is to the effect that the landlord shall first obtain necessary sanction for construction of a new building on the same site from the Cantonment Board before he applies for an order for eviction of his tenant. In the present case no such sanction has been obtained from the Cantonment Board which is frankly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent., It may be stated here that demolition of a building by itself is not a ground for eviction of a tenant under the Provisions of section 17(2)(vi) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The order of the learned Controller Cantonment on the face of it is without jurisdiction and suffers from an apparent error. Accordingly the appeal is accepted and the order passed by the learned Additional Controller of Rents Clifton Cantonment is set aside but' there will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./A-1403/K Appeal accepted.