1995CLC 1269 (PLP)

Mian Nisar Ahmad and Sh. Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner. Amir Alam Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Date of hearing: 14th June, 1994. This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos. 5543, 5544, 5545, 5546 and 5343 of 1988, which are directed against the same judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, and in which common questions arise for determination.

2. The petitioners in all these petitions are tenants under respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of various parts of Property No. S‑49‑R‑90‑B, 90 Chamberlain Road, Lahore. These respondents filed separate applications against all the petitioners seeking their eviction from the properties in their occupation on the ground that they require the same for their own use and also for re‑construction. The learned Rent Controller, on 30‑10‑1986, dismissed all these ejectment petitions holding that personal need of the landlords did not stand proved. As regards reconstruction, it was observed that the sanction of the building plan by the Lahore Municipal Corporation was set aside by the Civil Court on a suit filed by the petitioners vide‑decree and judgment dated 15‑4‑1985. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, respondents Nos. l and 2 went in appeal which were accepted by an Additional District Judge on 16‑7‑1988. The appellate Court observed that the decree passed by the Civil Court on 15‑4‑1985 nullifying the sanction of the building plan was ex parte in nature and an application for setting aside it was pending and as such, it could not be held that there was no sanctioned building plan in existence. The petitioners have now invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing these petitions.

3. Before proceeding further it may be stated that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has since been accepted by the learned trial Court on 9‑2‑1994 and the ex parte decree dated 15‑4‑1985 whereby the sanction of the building plan was declared to be illegal was set aside. It is also not disputed by respondents Nos. l and 2 that the order of the Civil Judge setting aside the ex parte decree was challenged by them in appeal but that was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 30‑5‑1994. As a result of setting aside of the ex parte decree and dismissal of the appeal against that order, the sanction of the building plan stands fully revived.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as the building plan was sanctioned during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge, the eviction of the petitioners could not be ordered.

5. This contention of the learned counsel stands negated by the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Haji Gul Muhammad v. Mst. Asmat Ara (1986 SCMR 1651) wherein it has been ruled that even if at the time of filing of ejectment petition, there was no sanctioned building plan but by the time an order of ejectment of the tenants is passed building plan stood sanctioned, the requirements of section 13(2)(vi) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance stand satisfied.

6. Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate, who appeared alongwith Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate, in these cases has argued that as the landlords had pleaded personal need in addition to the reconstruction, which plea was found not to have been proved, they were liable to fail on the second ground. Reliance in this behalf was placed by him on Abdullah Baloch v. Adam Ali (PLD 1961 SC 28) and Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain (PLD 1978 SC 78).

7. This contention is not well‑founded. Personal need and reconstruction are grounds independent of each other and if the petitioners have not been able to establish their personal need, it does not necessarily follow that they do not require the premises for reconstruction also. Furthermore, as observed by the learned Additional District Judge in his judgment, which is impugned in this petition, the landlords had abandoned the ground of personal need when their attorney stated before the Rent Controller that after reconstruction, the petitioners would be accommodated in the building. This clearly shows the bona fide of the respondents. The precedents relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners have absolutely no application.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in any event, the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the decree cancelling the sanction of the building plan being ex part,‑ was not binding on the parties is fallacious. Even if that be so, still it hardly improves the case of the petitioners as admittedly the ex parte decree has since been set aside and the appeal filed against the order setting aside ex parte decree has also been dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, these petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The parties are granted four months' time from today to vacate the premises in their occupation. H.B.T./T‑100/L Petition dismissed.