2001 SCMR 1698 (PLP)

HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.‑‑‑This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6‑6‑2000 in S.A.O. No.2 of 1998 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby the said appeal was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an eviction application against the petitioners in respect of shop No.D‑165 situated in D‑Block, Attock City on the grounds that they wanted to reconstruct the said shop and that the petitioners were defaulters in the payment of rent. The petitioners in their written statement denied that the said shop was required by the respondents for reconstruction or that they were defaulters in the payment of rent. The Rent Controller, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, allowed the eviction application, holding that the respondents required the said shop for reconstruction and that the petitioners were defaulters in the payment of rent and consequently he ordered eviction of the petitioners. The petitioners filed Civil Appeal No.83 of 1996, which was heard by Additional District Judge Attock and was dismissed, maintaining the findings of the learned Civil Judge and Rent Controller. However, he observed that the petitioners ejectment being on the ground of reconstruction, therefore, the respondents shall be bound by the provisions of section 13(5‑B) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioners filed S.A.O. 2 of 1998 before the High Court, which was also dismissed, maintaining the findings of the two Courts below.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the caveators and perused the record.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was neither default in the payment of rent, nor the respondent required the shop in question for reconstruction. He has also submitted that as the eviction of the petitioners has been ordered on the ground of reconstruction, therefore, petitioners would be entitled to the restoration of possession in the newly constructed building in terms of section 13(5‑B) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which relief was granted to the petitioners by the learned Additional District Judge but High Court has dismissed the appeal without granting the said protection.

5. We have gone through the evidence minutely with the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner who has not been able to pursuade us that the findings of the two Courts below and the High Court are based on misreading or non‑reading of evidence and are illegal. Oral and documentary evidence led by the respondents proved that the petitioners were rightly held to be defaulters in the payment of ten months' rent under the law and the respondents required the shop in question for reconstruction. All the three Courts have given cogent and valid reasons for arriving at the findings, therefore, no exception can be taken to the said findings. So far the submission that the petitioners are entitled to the restoration of possession of the shop in question as provided under section 13(5‑B) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, it may be observed that the ejectment of the petitioners has not been ordered solely on the ground of reconstruction of the shop in question but at the same time on the ground of non‑payment of the rent, therefore, the petitioners would not be entitled to the benefit of the said provisions of the law. In the circumstances, petition has no merits, which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M‑226/S Petition dismissed.