1. ' This appeal under section 15 (4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, has been filed by Messrs Dada Limited (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) to challenge concurrent orders passed by the XVth Civil Judge, Second Class and Rent Controller, Karachi, and 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi, whereby the tenant's- ejectment has been ordered at the instance of respondent Madersa Mazharul Uloom Association (hereinafter referred to as the landlord). Upon hearing Mr. Jan Muhammad Dawood and Mr. Aziz Urfi for the appellant, and Mr. Nooruddin Sarki for the respondent, 1 had dismissed this appeal with costs, and reasons for such order will presently follow ' The landlord owns two plots bearing Survey No, Ly. 4/28 and No, Ly. 4/29, each measuring 6000 sq.
2. Yds in Nayabad, Karachi. The tenants are in occupation of one of these plots with constructions.
3. The premises had been initially leased out for a period of ten years with effect from September, 1949, and the lease was extended by a further period of ten years, which also expired on 17th April 1969. The landlord is a registered society, which has been formed with the objects of imparting primary education, religious education, imparting of secondary and higher -education, maintaining a library and a boarding house for students, and for fulfilling cognate objects. On 27th April, 1968 the landlord association passed a resolution for carrying on further development to fulfil the objects of the society by construction of a boarding house, ladies industrial home, mother and child health centre and maternity home, expansion of the primary girls school and raising a school to lower secondary grade. Since the disputed premises were required by the landlord to implement the resolution, notices were given to the tenants to vacate the premises. On the demand not being complied with, a case for ejectment was filed on 16th April, 1970 seeking eviction on twofold grounds, namely, default in payment of rent, and bona fide requirement for personal use. A written statement was filed by the tenants, in which the allegation of default was denied, and it was stated that the rent having been refused by the landlord, was being deposited in the Court under orders of the Court. It was also denied that the. Landlords required the premises bona fide for their own use, it was averred that the landlords had other premises suitable for their need. On such state of pleadings, the following two issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the applicant needs the premises bona fide for his own use ?
(2) Whether the opponents failed to pay or tender rent from 1st April, 1969 ?
4. ' In the trial Court, each one of the parties examined three witnesses, and contest mainly centred round the first issue in regard to the demand of the landlord being bona fide. On the second issue, there was no contest, as the same was not pressed by the landlords. The learned Civil Judge found that the landlord/respondent needed the premises in dispute in good faith for own use, and directed ejectment of the appellant/ tenant. An appeal was filed, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi.
5. ' The only contention raised by the appellant/tenant before me is that the premises in question were not required by the landlord in good faith. It must be said initially that, on a detailed and reasoned examination of the evidence, both the Controller as well as the Additional District Judge have recorded findings of fact in favour of the landlords. And, in second appeals, such findings of fact are not to be lightly displaced. Haji Pir Muhammad, who is the Honorary Secretary of the A landlord Society, entered the witness-box, and produced the Articles of Association together with the copy of the resolution passed by the Society, authorising the filing of the case, and making new construction on the disputed premises after ejectment of the tenant. Mr. A. Aziz Urfi, for the appellant, has contended before me that the demand of the landlord was mala fide and unreasonsable, because they could make the proposed construction on the other adjacent plot, which was lying vacant. In regard to that plot, the established position on record is that the same is being used for the purpose of an Eidgah. As it is, the choice always lies with the landlord to choose the place, which he requires for hi purpose, and the Courts would rarely examine the demand of the landlord on the hypothesis of availability of other premises. It is not the case of the tenant that the premises, which are being demanded by the landlord, are not suitable. Or, reasonable for the use to which he proposes to employ the premises. On such a question, Mr. Aziz Urfi candidly stated before me that the premises in possession of the tenants could be reasonably employed by the landlord for the proposed constructions, and, that being so, it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to ask the landlord not to seek eviction, or, to utilise other premises owned by him for the purposes of his need. In any case, it is established on record that the other plot, owned by the landlord, is utilised as an Eidgah, and such a purpose is sacred, even though the said Eidgah is not officially dedicated for that purpose. I am not able to see any substance in this argument, and, in my view, the Courts below have arrived at correct conclusions of fact on the material that was available on the record. I am also of the view that, since a building already exists on the plot, which is in occupation of the tenant, it would tend to reduce the cost of fresh construction if the said plot is utilised for it.
6. ' The purpose for which eviction has been sought has not been challenged before me, though a faint argument was raised by Mr. Aziz Urfi that the landlord does not have sufficient funds to carry on the construction and fulfil the resolution, which was passed by the landlord association. The balance-sheets of the landlord society have been placed on record, and the same show that the landlord society gets donations, Sadqa, Fitra, grants in aid, and rents for the property that it owns. It is common knowledge that, if ,a person undertakes construction of a building for public good, or, in advancement of religious purposes, donations are made by people having means. It is true that the, present financial position of the landlord society is not clearly stated on the record, because the cases before the Controller proceeded nearly ten years back, but, to that extent, it is not difficult to imagine that the landlord society would be able to procure funds. I asked Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, who appeared for the respondents, and he stated that, within six months of the landlord obtaining possession of the premises, they would start new construction: Such statement has not been disputed. I am, therefore, of the view that the demand for ejectment is bona fide, and the premises are required by the landlord in good faith.
7. ' No other point was raised before me. In the result, I dismiss this appeal with costs, but I allow for months' time to the appellant to vacate the premises in question. In case, the respondent does not start construction within six months of the appellant vacating the premises, the latter shall be free to choose his remedy in law.