' ABDUL QADIR MENGAL, J.--- Through this common judgment, I have proposed to dispose of the F.A.Os. Nos.94 of 2009, 95 of 2009, 99 of 2009; 117 of 2009, 120 of 2009, 3 of 2010, 4 of 2010, 6 of 2010, 7 of 2010, 8 of 2010, 9 of 2010, 10 of 2010, 11 of 2010, 12 of 2010, 13 of 2010 and 14 of 2010, as the law and facts involved in the above all F.A.Os. Are same and common which arising out from the judgments dated 30-3-2009 and 4-12-2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge-III/Rent Controller Quetta, in eviction applications, filed against the appellants by the respondent No,1/applicant Anjuman-e- Islamia, Balochistan, whereby the learned Civil Judge-III/Rent Controller, Quetta allowed the eviction applications in respect of premises bearing Khasra No,638, 648, 639, 647, 640, 642, 580, 641, 582, 644, 583, 581, 586, 585, 637, 645, 643, 584, 646, Khata No,133, Khatooni Nos.269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 and 286, measuring approximately 17023 sq.Ft. In Ward No,35, at the Junction of Shara-e-Iqbal and Munsafi Road, Quetta, over which there are various premises bearing Municipal Nos.1-27-37, 1-27-38, 1-27-39-A, 1-27-39-B, 1-27-40, 1-27-41, 1-27-42/44, 1-27-43, 1-27-45, 1-27-46 (1 to 5), 1-27-46(6), 1-27-46(7), 1-27-46(8), 1-27-46(9), 1- 2746(10), 1-27-46(11), 1-27, 46(12), 1-27-46(13), 1-27-46(14) and 1-2746(15-A). So as Khasra Nos.338 (188 sq.Ft), 339 (180 sq.Fi); 340 (180 sq.Ft), 341 (185 sq.Ft), 342 (195 sq.Ft), 343 (180 sq.Ft), 344 (180 sq.Ft), 345 (180 sq.Ft), 346 (180 sq.Ft), 347 (183 sq.Ft), 400 (328 sq.Ft), 401 (177 sq.Ft) 402 (158 sq.Ft), 403 (159 sq.Ft). 404 (185 sq.Ft), 405 (155. Sq.Ft), 406 (403 sq.Ft), 407 (359 sq.Ft) and 350 (6192 sq.Ft), situated at Toghi Road. Quetta and directed the appellants to vacate the premises within four months from the date of passing of the judgments and further the respondent No, l/applicant was directed to hand over the shops to the appellants in proposed newly-constfucted plaza to an area equal to the shops in possession of each and every appellants. Whereas, the eviction application was treated dismissed as to the extent of respondent No,62 to 62-D, who having Khokas, bearing Municipal No,01-27/39(1).
' The appellants being Aggrieved of the said judgments have approached this Court through the instant appeals.
2. M/s Kamran Murtaza, Baz Muhammad Kakar; Mian Badar Munir, Rauf Hashmi and Gul Hassan, Advocates wereheard on behalf of the appellants, whereas Mr. Sher Shah Kasi, Advocate represented the respondent No,1/applic ant Anjuman-e-Islamia, Balochistan.
3. The facts of all these appeals are almost same and identical one, whereas the respondent No,1/applicant Anjuman-e-Islamia, Balochistan being a society registered under the Society Act, 1860 having its office in the premises of Islamia High School, Mechongi Road is the owner of the land bearing Nos. Mentioned hereinabove, and on which the appellants have constructed of their own shops and carrying business since 1967 and afterwards, whereas it is stated that some of the shops situated at Circular Road, to have been constructed by the respondent No,1/applicant and has been handed over to the appellants.
4. The respondent No,1/applicant through an eviction application, filed against the appellants requested the Court for eviction of the appellants, on different grounds including that of the respondent No,1/applicant requires the premises for re-construction and erection of a multi- storeyed building, therefore, the appellants be evicted from the premises as described and referred in the eviction applications. Whereas for re-construction of the proposed new building, necessary, approval has been obtained, on 25-4-2008 from Zarghoon Town, Quetta, but the appellants/respondents are not ready to vacate and hand over the premises to the respondent No,1/applicant.
5. The appellartts/respondents while opposing the eviction applications, filed by the respondent No,1/applicant Anjuman-e-Islamia Balochistan raised certain legal and as well as factual objections and finallly stated that the appellants got or handed over disputed open land by the 'respondent No:1/applicant to the appellants as back as 40 years and since then they are in possession and have raised superstructure over the premises in shape of shops of their own expenses and also have spent considerable amount for their business in shape of installing, printing machines and like other instruments. Whereas the respondent Nol/applicant Anjuman-e- Islamia Balochistan instead of compensating the appellants, .Almost intended to ruin their livelihood. Actually the respondent No, 1/applicant did not want to build any plaza, but the main object of the respondent No,1/applicant Anjuman-e-Islamia Balochistan was to vacate and grab the land by means of filing false eviction applications.
6. After hearing the both sides, I have also perused the record of the case. Though the learned counsel for the appellants have raised many objections in their appeals by attacking the impugned judgments, passed by the Civil Judge-III/Rent Controller, Quetta, but it appears to me that before this Court no any specific ground was agitated, which could show that the learned trial Court/Rent Controller, Quetta has passed any illegal or improper order. The learned counsel also failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence in the impugned judgments. The ground, on which the learned Civil Judge-III/Rent Controller, Quetta has based his eviction judgment, seems has been fully established by the respondent No,1/applicant Anjuman-e-Islamia Balochistan that he requires the disputed plots for the purpose of raising plaza over the said property and this fact has not been coat roverted by the appellants. Admittedly the appellants are not disputing the ownership of respondent No,1/applicant regarding the disputed premises. So as also no any specific material has come on, record from the side of the appellants, which could show that the respondent No,1/applicant unjustifiably harassing them.
7. The grounds, 'which the appellants mdstly have agitated before the trial Court and as well as before this Court, are objections of common nature, just as the respondent No,1/applicant is not authorized to file the eviction applications on behalf of the Anjuman-e-Islamia Balochistan or. As the description of the properties have not been properly mentioned. Whereas none of the appellants almost has repudiated or rejected the contention of the respondent No, 1/applicant Anjuman-eIslamia that he would not reconstruct a new building on the disputed premises and further none of them has repudiated that the respondent No,1/applicant Anjuman-e-Islamia Balochistan has not obtained any approval from the concerned Municipal Administration to build a multi-storeyed building. As admittedly. Section 13 clause 6 of Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance allows the Rent Controller to evict any person when the owner of any building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for re-construction or erection of a building on the site, when the landlord has obtained the necessary sanctions from the competent authorities for re-construction or erection of the appellants then agitation of appellants is no more than to stop the pace of development, which, is not acceptable. In this respect .1997 SCMR 1819 is very much clear, which reads as under:- "Landlord has right to enjoy his own property by making improvement or changes if otherwise entitled to seek its possession from the tenant--- No clog exists on the rights of landlord for re- constructing the old building for his bona fide requirement"
It means that the impugned judgments, passed by the Civil Judge-III/Rent Controller, Quetta have a legal back and rightly have ICbeen passed by evicting the appellants from the possessed premises.
8. Though Mr. Kamran Murtaza Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants in F.A.O. No,14 of 2010, agitated that Khasra No,400, measuring 328 sq.Ft. Has not been mentioned in the permission letter for construction of multi-storeyed building/plaza, therefore, when his Khasra number is not included in the approval letter, on which his shop bearing Nos.11 and 12 are existing, so the respondent No,1/applicant Anjumane-Islamia Balochistan cannot evict the appellant from the premises on that ground and in this regard the learned Rent Controller, Quetta has erred in holding that his premises are required for construction of new building. On my anxious thought to the objection, I am of the view that the letter of permission No,1588, prima facie does not show Khasra No,400 of the appellant, however, admittedly he did not dispute that his shops bearing Nos.11 and 12 are not part of the said premises, on which the proposed new plaza is to be constructed and for which the Court has directed to allot him premises equal to the ejected premises of the shops.
Hence this point, on account of the above having no force is repelled.
9. As, I have mentioned hereinabove, that no any other significant ground has been agitated before this Court, which amounting to be an illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments.
However, in my view there is some force in the contentions of the appellants that they are occupying the premises from the last more than 40 years, being faithful tenants and without any complaint from any corner. Again there is also weight or force in the contention of the appellants that they had got open pieces of lands from the respondent No,1/applicant Anjuman-e-Islamia Balochistan and then developed it by constructing of their superstructure and establishing their businesses such as, printing press etc, but on account of the demolishing of all the structures and removing the machines, they certainly would suffer irreparable losses and then would be deprived of their livelihood. So being, they genuinely require some compensation from the respondent No, 1/applicant Anjuman-e-Islamia Balochistan.
10. On my considering the view, admittedly the Anjuman-e-Islamia Balochistan, being a welfare society, serving to the general public and having no any such resources to compensate the appellants in respect of their removal from the premises or demolishing the structures. However, considering the section 4 of the Rent laws, I think it would have been proper that the Rent Controller would have considered this aspect of the matter, but he failed to do so. Whereas appeal under section 15 of the Ordinance is an appeal from a original decree under section 96, C.P.C. And the appellate Court has the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are confirmed and imposed by the Courts of original jurisdiction. In this regard I have benefited my view from 1984 SCMR, 504. Therefore, I think it would be proper in the present matter to determine or fix fair rent in respect of the proposed new reconstructed plaza, in which according to the impugned judgments, the appellants were to accommodate by the respondent No, 1/applicant Anjuman-e-Islamia Balochistan. Thus under section 4 of the Balochistan H. Ordinance 3 of 1980, the respondent No,1/applicant Anjuman-e-Islamia Balochistan is directed that while accommodating the appellants, he/she shall charge the rent from the appellants less than 3% of the rent in the proposed newly constructed plaza to that of the prevailing market rent value. In this respect I have supported my view from PLD 1971 Lahore, 210, which reads as follows:--- "Section 4 provides that the Controller shall take into consideration the rent of the same or a similar accommodation in similar circumstances prevailing in the locality. This, however does not deprive the Controller from taking into consideration other factors in fixing the fair rent, such as long stay of 20 years, of location of premises in the most prosperous commercial area".
Thus with the above modification in the impugned judgments dated 30-3-2009 and 4-12-2009, passed by the Civil Judge-III/ Rent Controller, Quetta, the same are maintained and the appeals are dismissed with no order as to cost.