1981SCMR924 (PLP)

Abid Hasan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 10th January, 1980. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition in directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the tenants S. A. O. in a rent case. The facts briefly are as follows The petitioners are the tenants of the respondents with respect to shop No.- U/358 Raja Bazar, Rawalpindi. The respondents filed an ejectment application against the petitioners on three grounds (1) default in payment of rent (2) bona fide requirement for reconstruction and bona fide need for personal use, The Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that no default bad been committed and that the respondents do not reasonably and in good faith require the property for reconstruction or for personal use. He also observed that the ground of reconstruction and personal need were mutually destructive. The landlord filed an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge Rawalpindi accepted the same vide his judgment dated 15th April, 1979 and reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on all the three issues. The tenants then filed an S. A. O. before the High Court which teas pleased to hold that the tenant has not committed any wilful default but upheld the finding of the First Appellate Court with regard to the bonafide need for reconstruction and personal use. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sufficient evidence is not available on the record to sustain the finding of bona fides with regard either to reconstruction or personal use: He argued that the respondents/ landlords had not discharged the onus of proving that the requirement of the premises for personal use and reconstruction are bona fide. He submitted further that some direct evidence should have been led by them to prove the bona fides of their intention e. g. by leading evidence that fresh construction had become necessary or that it shall yield some extra benefit or income to them and also whether the reconstruction was possible without the consent of the owners of the adjacent building whose walls are common with the shop in question. He also urged that the pleas of personal use and reconstruction are mutually destructive. We are afraid that we are unable to agree with these contentions it is now well settled that the pleas of reconstruction and personal use are not mutually destructive Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain (PLD 1978SC78). Moreover, we feel that there is sufficient evidence in this case for the learned High Court Judge to have sustained the finding of the bona fides requirement of the premises and bona fide personal use as well as reconstruction. The respondents/landlords have produced an approved site plan in support of their plea of reconstruction, which fulfils the requirement of law. The mere fact that the site plan for reconstruction had been got sanctioned from the Municipal Committee six years prior to the filing of the ejectment application does not detract from the bona fides of the landlords intention to reconstruct the premises. It is not essential for the landlord to show as to why he considers reconstruction as necessary. It may also be mentioned that while subsections (4), (5-A) and (5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, provide sufficient safeguard of the rights of the tenants, subsection (5) of the said section also provides sufficient guarantee that the landlord shall reconstruct the building after it is got vacated through the Court, because he would know full well that in case of failure to do so he would not only have to put back the tenant in possession, but shall also be liable to undergo a sentence of imprisonment. As such, the mere fact that the landlord has made an ejectment application with full knowledge of the liability imposed by the aforementioned provisions of law is sufficient e to demonstrate the bona fides of his intention to reconstruct the premises in question after getting it vacated. In view of the above discussion we dismiss the petition as being without merits and order the tenants petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to the landlords respondents within foul months. Petition dismissed.