P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

B. D. Pudumji v. Sir Dinshaw Maneckji Putit 22 B. L R 880 rel. A. M. Khoja for Appellant. Date of hearing : 15th April 1959. JUDGMENT. This is a second appeal under section 15 (4j of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957 as continued in force by the Ordinance of 1959. The original proceedings were brought under the Sind Rent Restriction Act, 1952 under section 9 (2) (c) by the landlord alleging that he required the premises reasonably and in good faith for the reconstruction of the building. He had obtained the approval of the Municipality for the plans for reconstruction. The plot was in possession of the opponents : Ahmedali Khan, Ghafoor and Ahmadali. It appears that there were two shops on the ground floor and one upper storey over both the shops. Ahmedali Khan was apparently in possession of one shop. Ahmedali son of Munawerali was residing in the upper storey with his family while Muhammad Shaft on behalf of his father Ghafoor stated before the Rent Controller that they were running a dairy in the other shop. The Rent Controller inspected the premises and found that the building was pucca but the southern portion of the upper storey was not strong. He said : "Its construction is very old and it is situated on the main road leading to Phuleli College. The applicant wants to reconstruct it on modern type and requires it reasonably and in good faith for reconstruction". The substance of these findings was reproduced in the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner and he stated "the building is admittedly not in a dangerous, condition. The present condition and construction work of the building are alright. If rich landlords are allowed to dismantle their fairly good constructions, the result will be that a large number of tenants, most of whom are bound to be Muhajirs, will be thrown on the streets which would not be a good policy. 1, therefore, feel that there was no justification to issue the ejectment". He finished his order by stating that the Rent Controller should in future minutely examine the condition of the buildings and should only issue a certificate when he is fully convinced that reconstruction of the building is inevitable and unavoidable.

2. Under section 21 (2) (b) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, which came into force on 6‑7‑1957 it is provided that all proceedings which immediately before the commencement of the Act were pending with any appellate authority under the Sind Rent Restriction Act should stand transferred to and be continued before the appellate authority deemed to have been appointed under this Act and any order made in such proceedings shall for all purposes have effect as an order made under this Act. The result is that, though this High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed under the Sind Rent Restriction Act, it acquires jurisdiction by virtue of ,the combined operation of sections 15 (4) and 21 (b) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1957, which, as I have said, has been reproduced by the Ordinance of 1959.

3. The decision, however, of the case depends upon the wording of section 9 (2) (c) of the Sind Rent Restriction Act, and in the present case the question is whether the appellate authority misdirected itself as to the law, a for I am only empowered to determine questions of law in second appeal. The main objection against the order of the appellate authority is that he appears to have considered that it would not be good policy to allow the throwing on to the streets of a large number of tenants, many of whom would be Muhajirs. As to this the preamble of the Sind Rent Restriction. Act stated that it is expedient (inter alia) to provide for preventing in certain cases eviction from accommodation supplied and it is to be gathered from the whole tenor of the Act that one main purpose of the Act was to protect tenants from having their tenancies terminated without due cause. I am not of course concerned with the present Act which does not contain any provision regarding reasonably and in good faith. The present Act states that if the landlord intends to demolish a building for constructing a new building on the same site and has already obtained a necessary sanction from the Municipal authority, the Controller may make an order evicting the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the buildin`. As I said, however, I am not concerned with the wording of the present Act. Mr. Khoja points out, that under the Sind Rent Restriction Act there was a separate provision regarding buildings in a ruinous or dangerous condition, and hence it could not be presumed that the wording of sub section (2) (c) of section 9 can be confined merely to cases where reconstruction of a building is unavoidable. There is much force in this reasoning. It appears to me that in the present case there is no doubt regarding the good faith of a landlord and the only question is regarding the word `reasonably'' This must have objective meaning, that is to say, the landlord's view as to reasonableness is not conclusive, but all relevant, factors are to be taken into consideration. In B. D. Pudumji v.1 Sir Dinshaw Maneckji Putit (22 B L R 880) it was held upon a similar question, namely, where a landlord required the premises bona fide and reasonably for the purposes of constructing new buildings to replace old, ill‑erected and badly ventilated premises that the landlord was entitled to reconstruct. In the present case, the Rent Controller, who himself saw the premises, con sidered that the construction was very old. I do snot think the appellate authority was justified m holding that because a) building is not in a dangerous condition or that its reconstruction is unavoidable the landlord does not reasonably require the premises. I consider that the appellate authority has misdirected itself upon the law and I therefore allow this appeal and restore the order of the Rent Controller. Mr. S. B. H. Zaidi, an advocate of Hyderabad, filed a Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents but no appearance has been made today on behalf of the respondents. Notice of the appeal for 13th October 1958, was issued. Mr. Khoja does not press for costs. K. B. A. Appeal accepted.