1. ' The respondent is the owner and landlord of a plot of land which has been let out to the appellant for commercial purpose on rent. On 24th July 1974, the respondent filed application under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), on the grounds firstly that the premises were required by him for the purpose of reconstruction of a shopping centre over the plot along with the other plots of land of the respondent adjacent to disputed plot; and secondly that the appellant had committed default in the payment of rent. After considering the evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller, ordered the eviction of the appellant only on the ground of requirement of the respondent for reconstruction. On the other ground of non-payment of rent the learned Controller gave a finding against the respondent. In the appeal filed by the appellant the learned District Judge, affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The appellant has now come up in second appeal.
2. ' The only argument advanced by the learned counsel in support of the appeal is that the two Courts below have not applied their mind to the requirements of section 13(2)(vi) of the Ordinance.
3. It was argued that the Controller has jurisdiction to order the handing over of possession of a building or rented land under the said provisions only after the landlord, inter alia proves that he requires the premises reasonably and in good faith for reconstruction or erection of a building on the site. It is not disputed that the respondent had produced documentary evidence to the effect that he had obtained necessary sanction for reconstruction of the shopping centre from the Municipal Committee, Thatha, but it was argued that since no issue was framed on the question whether the demand of the landlord was reasonable the two Courts below had fallen in error in upholding the plea of the respondent. I find no force in this contention. In the judgment of the learned District Judge, 1 find that in his examination the respondent had produced the plan, sanction letter and the letter of extension of the sanction for construction of the shopping centre. It is also clear from the order of the learned Rent Controller that the appellant is utilizing the disputed plot of land for the purpose of an Oil Crusher and there is no allegation that the respondent was motivated for any ulterior purpose to eject the appellant. The appellant in his deposition also admitted that building materials had been collected near the plot. Clearly, therefore, the respondent was seeking the eviction of the appellant for the purpose of reaction of a shopping centre on the plot in question. It was held in Mauladad v. Sardar Khan (1) that the word 'reasonable' as it occurs in section 13(2)(vi) is a word of wide import and its meaning cannot be curtailed arbitrarily and that any reconstruction which would enable the landlord substantially to develop or improve his property would be reasonable within the meaning of the said provision. The two Courts below, therefore, rightly held that the requirement of the landlord was reasonable and in good faith.
4. Learned counsel lastly argued that this finding could only be given after framing issue to the effect whether the requirement of the landlord for reconstruction was reasonable, whereas the issue framed by the Rent Controller was only whether the landlord required the premises for reconstruction in good faith. The argument proceeds on technicalities and lacks substance. The issue as framed quite substantially embraces the whole question whether the premises were required for reconstruction within the relevant provision of law. In any case the parties went to trial on the allegation that the respondent required the premises reasonably and in good faith and the necessary evidence is on the record. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant.
5. ' There is no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(1) PLD 1972 Quetta 39