1984 PLP 91 (MLD)

2. In support of the above appeal Mr.Saleem Iqbal, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the respondent did not have any valid approved plan at the time of passing of the ejectment order and therefore, the learned Rent Controller should not have allowed the above application on the above ground. His further submission was that factually the approval of the plan was obtained by misrepresentation and that the K.D.A. should have revoked the approval. On the other hand Mr. Umrani learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the above rent case was filed on 28-5-1980 on which date the respondent had a valid approved plan as the approval was accorded on 21st May, 1980. Mr.Saleem in support of his above contention has referred to a letter, dated 16-6-1981 issued by the Deputy Controller of Buildings, Building Controller Authority, Karachi which reads as follows:- "Mr.Qazi Towheed-u-Zaman??????????????????????????????????????????????????? Dated 16-6-1981. Applicant, R-666, Block I, Scheme 16, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi. Sub: Appeal of Building Plan regarding Plot No.R-666, Block 1, Scheme 16, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi. We have gone through your complaint regarding the above-noted subject-matter. It is to be noted that the validity of the said plan is expired on dated 21-5-81 as such, the building plan is automatically require renewal. It is further noted that this approval was granted subject to the demolition of the old quarter/ structure, and it cannot be proceeded unless the premises got vacated legally. (Sd.) Dy. Controller of Buildings-V, Building Control Authority, Karachi." Mr. Umrani has referred to the case of Rashid Brothers, Faisalabad v. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan and another 1981 S C M R 782 and also the Karachi Building Control Authority letter, dated 23-7-1981 for the renewal of the plan for a further period of one year with effect from 23-7-81. It was pointed out by Mr. Saleem that this renewal letter has not been proved by the respondent before the Rent Controller and, therefore, it cannot be looked into.

3. Even if I were to ignore the above renewal letter the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above-cited case has held that during the pendency of ejectment proceedings on the ground of reconstruction the landlord is not required to obtain renewal of the plan every year. In the instant case it is evident that the plan was approved by the K.D.A. on 21-5-1980, whereas the ejectment case was filed on 28-5-1980 and, therefore, at the time of filing of the above rent application the respondent had the valid approved plan for a period of one year expiring on 21-5-1981 as mentioned in the above-quoted letter. The above Supreme Court case on all forum is applicable to the instant case.

4. As regards Mr.Saleem Iqbal's contention that the approval of the above plan was obtained by the respondent by misrepresentation, he has referred to the above sanction letter, in which in the last para, it has been stated that the approval was liable to be cancelled due to misrepresentation of fact. He has referred to the above-quoted letter and has submitted that in his application the appellant had stated that there was misrepresentation of fact by the respondent and that since the above-quoted letter was sent in reply to the appellant's above application. It can be inferred that factually the approval was obtained on misrepresentation. In my view, the above contention is devoid of any force as the above-quoted letter only states that the plan was valid upto 21-5-81 an that it had expired on that date. The above-quoted letter does not say that factually the respondent had obtained the approval on misrepresentation of fact.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed with an order as to costs. However, the appellant is allowed two months time from today on the condition that in case he fails to hand over the vacant possession on the expiry of the above period of two months, the learned Rent Controller shall issue writ of ejectment without further notice to the appellant. M. A. K.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.