1981 PLP 257 (SCMR)

FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The appellant is unsuccessful tenant against whom an eviction order has been made on the ground that the premises in dispute is required by the landlord for reconstruction under the then section 13(5)(6) of the Rent Ordinance. The section as it then stood permitted the landlord to obtain possession of a tenanted premises on the ground of simplicitor that he intended to demolish the premises and recons truct the same for which purposes he was in possession of requisite sanctioned building plans. The landlord's application for eviction was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 11-6-1969 but in appeal the order was reversed which order was maintained by the High Court in second appeal against which the present appeal is directed. During the pendency of the rent application section 13(5)(6) of the Rent Ordinance was amended on 8-6-1965 which further required the landlord to prove the reasonableness and his bona fide before he could succeed for obtaining possession of a tenanted premises on the ground of reconstruction for which he was armed with a requisite sanctioned plan. Leave was granted by this Court vide order 12-1-1971 to examine the contention whether the aforesaid amendment in section 13(5)(6) of the Rent Ordinance was retrospective so as to govern the prior application for eviction made by the respondent landlord against the appellant tenant. Mr. Ahmadullah Farooqi, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the rent application was filed on 5-4-1965 and during its pendency the Law was amended as aforesaid, and, therefore, the Rent Controller as well as the two appellate Courts should have given effect to the amended law and therefore, examined the reasonableness and the bona fides of the respondent landlord in seeking the eviction. The controversy whether the said amend ment was retrospective stands by decision of this Court in the case of Hasan and others v. Fancy Foundation (PLD1975SC1 ) in which it was held that the amendment was prospective and would not govern pending proceedings. Mr. Ahmadullah Farooqi, however, went on to argue that an issue was raised as to whether or not landlord's request for reconstruction was reasonable and bona fide to which no objection was raised by the landlord and further more evidence was led by the parties is support of the respective contentions as to reasonableness and bona fides and landlord is, therefore, estoppel from now contending that he was entitled to eviction under the unamen1ed law, irrespective of the reasonableness of his request or his bona fides. The short answer to this is that there is no estoppel against law and since it was not the requirement of the law that the landlord had to prove reasonableness as well as his bona fides, the fact that an issue was framed to this effect or evidence led by the parties, would be wholly immaterial. The learned counsel next contended that the landlord did not intend to reconstruct but the finding, however, is that such intention did exist, which finding has been elaborately discussed by the learned Single Judge in the second appeal. In arriving at the finding, it was not given that the two appellate Courts had violated principles relating to appreciation of evidence. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is dismissed. In the circumstance, however, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.