' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.--- On 29-12-1999, Abdul Ghani, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, filed the ejectment application against the respondents on four grounds i,e, (i) default in payment of annual rent of Rs,199.62 to the Cantonment Board for the purposes of renewal of lease deed; (ii) personal requirement; (iii) renovation, which have materially impaired the value, look and utility of the premises, and (iv) subletting. A business of Petrol Pump was being carried out in the suit premises. The respondents denied all the above allegations by filing written statement.
However, they took the plea that addition and alteration was made with approval of Cantonment Board; that there was no default in payment of rent and also denied the other grounds. The case proceeded on the above points. The learned Rent Controller decided the issues of default in payment of rent, personal need and addition/alteration in favour of the appellants but decided the issue of subletting against them. The respondents filed the F.R.A. Before the High Court of Sindh at Karachi and the learned High Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Rent Controller under the impugned judgment dated the 20-12-2002. The appellants, who are legal heirs of the original landlord, with the leave of the Court, have filed the present appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned Advocate Supreme Court, appearing for the appellants, Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, representing the respondents and perused the record of the case with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that additions and alterations were made without the written consent of the appellants and that the said additions and alterations had materially impaired the value, look and utility of the premises. He has further argued that the respondents had committed default in payment of enhanced annual rent of Rs,299. He has relied upon case-law on the proposition that the ejectment application is not required to contain full and complete particulars and on the proposition that unauthorized construction is a valid ground for ejectment. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that leave granting order was only in respect of additions/alterations, therefore, the ground of default in payment of rent cannot be considered at this stage. He has further argued that the additions/alterations had not materially impaired the value, look and utility of the premises; that the written consent of the landlord was not required; that the said point has been decided in the Constitution Petition No,97 of 1993, wherein the learned High Court had decided that for approval of plan the consent of the landlord was not required and that even otherwise under section 17(2)(iii) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, the consent of the landlord is not required.
3. As regards default in payment of rent. He has argued that no period of default has been mentioned in the ejectment application; that the landlord had improved the case in the evidence by alleging; that enhanced annual rent of Rs,299 was not paid; that the said enhancement was agreed by the appellants themselves without any notice to the respondents, therefore, there is no default in payment of rent. In support of his proposition, he had relied upon Basit Sibtain v.
Muhammad Sharif 2004 SCM R 578, Abdul Haque v. Shaukat Ali 2003 SCM R 74 and Binyameen v.
Hakim 1996 SCM R 336.
4. Having heard the. Learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case very carefully, it would be advantageous to reproduce section 17(2)(iii) of the Act, which reads as under:---
(2) A landlord who seeks to eject his tenant shall apply to the Controller for order in that behalf, and the Controller may, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession, if he is satisfied that---
(iii) the tenant has committed such acts as likely to materially impair the value, look or utility of the building."
' A perusal of the above provisions of law reveals that no written consent is required for making additions/alterations. The plan was approved by the Cantonment Board. The said action was challenged in Constitution Petition No,D-97 of 1993 in which the learned High Court had observed that for approval of such plan the consent of landlord was not required. In the premises, a business of Petrol Pump is being carried out. The addition/alteration has been made with the approval of Cantonment Board which by itself does not materially impair the value. Look and utility of the building but on the contrary, it has increased the value, utility and look of the premises.
5. As regards the default in payment of annual rent. Paras 3 and 4 of the ejectment application deal therewith, which read as under:--- "(3) That as per Tenancy Agreement, the Opponent was bound to pay an Annual Rent of Rs,199.62 to the Cantonment Board for the purpose of Renewal by granting a sub-lease to the President of Pakistan or to the competent authority i,e, the Military Estate Officer.
(4) That the opponent has failed to pay the annual rent to the competent authority and thereby defaulted payment of the Annual Rent and ultimately the applicant paid the said amount to the competent authority and thereby suffered heavy financial losses."
' In these paras no period of default in payment of rent has been shown. In the evidence, the case has been set up that the increased annual rent of Rs,299 was not paid by the respondents; therefore, the same was paid by the appellants. The said case was not set up in the application as such it is an improvement in the course of evidence.
6. The learned High Court has examined both the issues very minutely and gave a detailed discussion on the said subject. After examining the relevant provisions of law and evidence available on record the learned High Court has arrived at the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove they said issues. We do not find any reason to interfere or disagree with the said finding.
7. Consequently, the appeal has no merits therefore the same is dismissed.