SHAFI-UR-RAHMAN, J.-The petitioners, who are the tenants under orders of ejectment, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 18.2-81 whereby their second appeal against an ejectment order was dismissed.
2. The respondent is admittedly the landlord. He along with others filed a petition seeking eviction of Khushi Muhammad, the predecessor-in. Interest of the petitioners, who was the tenant of a residential building in Faisalabad. The grounds taken were that there was default in the payment of rent; that the landlord required the premises in good faith for reconstruc. Tion and for personal use.
The petition was contested. Issues were framed.
3. The Rent Controller found that Khushi Muhammad was in occupation of the premises since 1947, and there was no complaint with regard to prompt payment of rent except once for the month of December, 1971. He therefore, exercised the discretion in favour of the tenant. As regards the other grounds the Rent Controller held that sanction of the local authority for reconstruction had not been obtained and there was no support for the allegation that the local authority itself had directed its demolition. The Rent Controller found none of these two grounds made out and rejected the petition for eviction.
4. On appeal, the First Appellate 1Authority reversed the finding on the issue of default on the ground that there was admission that rent at least for two months was in arrears. The findings on other two issues were also reversed holding that the property was required for reconstruction and that the landlord required it on that account.
5. In the second appeal the learned Judge in the High Court found that the ground of default was not established even on the allegation that two months rent was in arrears because there was no agreement to indicate the time when the rent became due. However, on the ground of reconstruc- -tion the learned Judge placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Qamar Din v. Mst. Taleh Begum (1980 SCM R 516), and held it proved, as the necessary sanction from the local authority was forthcoming during the pendency of the proceedings. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the ground of personal need and reconstruction were mutually destructive of each other was also repelled by reference to another decision of this Court in Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussatn (PLD 1978 SC78). As the property was to be reconstructed into a commercial premises the learned Judge held that the personal need of the landlord for its occupation remained unproved.
The eviction order was, therefore, maintained.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that even though the ground of bona fide personal need may not be technically destructive of the plea of bona fide need for reconstruction the f ending on the issue of bona fide personal need did re-act adversely on the other ground and it should have been so recognized and given effect to. He has relied on Abdullah Baloch v. Adam All (PLD 1961 SC 28), for explaining the decision given by this Court in Abdul Burl's case (PLD 1961 SC 28).
The ground of reconstruction, one of the grounds taken up by the landlord for getting the tenant evicted, was held proved by the First Appellat Court and the second. On facts such a need is not contested. The evidence shows that the property was badly damaged by rains and was in need of repairs. This was independent of the unproved assertion that a notification had also been received from the local authority directing its demolition in view of its having become dangerous. The plan of the property duly sanctioned by the local authority was also available for sustaining the requirement of the landlord for the purposes of its reconstruction. The factual requirements were, therefore, satisfied and the Courts were justified in holding that it was required for reconstruction.
8. The two legal grounds on which such a finding has been challenged are of combination of the two grounds and the fact that on reconstruction the property would be put to commercial use and not residential as at present. The learned Judge in the High Court was right in holding that once the property was to be reconstructed and in the process of reconstruction converted from residential into commercial premises the element of personal need for using it as a residence disappeared.
Augmentation of one's means of sustenance by such reconstruction and conversion when the property was in need of it does not in any manner militate against the bona fide of the landlord.
Reconstruction of a property is not linked up with the personal need of the landlord as such. The plea of reconstruction of a property has to be examined by reference to the condition of the property, its economic utility, the resources of the landlord and the steps whichhad taken in order to advance his plans for reconstructing the property. It is these factors which go to establish his need as bona fide. The landlord---s case satisfied these tests and it could not fail on the ground that the landlord failed on some other ground for getting the same tenant evicted.
9. The decision in Abdullah Baluch's case has no application because the law (Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953) under which that decision was handed down was different from the one which was administered in the case of the petitioners. The more relevant decision is that of Abdul l5ari where the two pleas were held to be not mutually destructive of each other.
10. We find no merit in the petition and the leave to appeal is refused.