The respondent had filed an ejectment application against the appel--lant Ghulam Jilani in respect of a house situated on Plot No. G/27, Rizvia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., -Karachi on the ground that the respondent wanted to demolish the house for the purpose of recon--struction.
The respondent had also obtained sanction for re-construction and got the plan approved from the K.D.A. The learned Rent Controller framed only one issue, i.e. Whether the applicant i.e. Respondent/landlord requires the premises for reconstruction. After recording the evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller was satisfied that the respondent/landlord required the premises for the purpose of reconstruction. On this finding the ejectment application was allowed and the appellant was directed to vacate the premises and hand over its possession to the respondent/landlord within 60 days by his judgment dated 15-3-1981. The appellant has filed this First Appeal against the said order under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
2. So far as the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, it is not denied. However, the tenancy agreement has been produced by the respondent as Exb. P/1 which is dated 1-1-1976 according to which the house in question was rented out to the appellant at Rs.
400 per month. The respondent has, in support of his case, filed his affidavit which is supported by the sanctioned plan (Exh. P/2) and the sanction accorded by the K.D.A. (Exh. P/3) which is dated 6- 12-1979. In his affidavit Mr. Aftab Ahmed has deposed that he wants to demolish this building and reconstruct it according to the sanctioned plan and therefore, he wants its possession.
3. In rebuttal there is an affidavit of appellant Ghulam Jilani, whose case is that it is not required by the respondent for reconstruction. He has further pleaded that the area which legally belongs to the respondent/ landlord is 300 Sq. Yds. On which the building in question is situated, but actually the appellant is in possession of 450 Sq. Yds. Le. 150 Sq. Yds. In addition to the area which the respondent/landlord legally owns. It is therefore, averred that so far as the additional area of 150 Sq. Yds. Is concerned, the respondent/landlord has no right whatsoever to get its possession from the appellant.
4. During the arguments Mr. Masoodul Hussain Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised three contentions. Firstly, that the plan (Exh. P/2) and the sanction (Exh. P/3) which are purported to have been approved and issued respectively by the K.D.A., have not been proved by examining any Officer of the K. D. A. Secondly, the sanction (Exh. P/3) was issued for one year on 12-6-1979 which expired on 12-6-1980. It is, therefore. Assumed that as the sanction was not valid at the time when the impugned ejectment order was passed on 15-3-1981 by the learned Rent Controller the respondent/landlord had no locus standi to get the appellant ejected on the ground of the dead sanction. Thirdly, it is contended that the area which actually belongs to the respondent is 300 Sq.
Yds., whereas the existing building which is in possession of the appellant covers an area of 450 Sq.
Yds and as such the ejectment application is not maintainable, so far as the additional area of 150 Sq. Yds. Is concerned.
5. So far as the plan (Exb. P/2). And the sanction (Exh. P/3) are concerned, these are official documents and have been specifically mentioned by the respondent/landlord in para. 2 of the ejectment appli--cation. In reply to this para. The appellant has not challenged the genuineness of these official documents. The responded/landlord has produced these documents alongwith his affidavit in the lower Court and stated in para. 3 of his affidavit that he has obtained the plan and the sanction from K.D.A. On 12-61979 for reconstruction of the structure on the existing plot. He was cross-examined by the appellant's counsel, but not a single question was put to challenge the--- genuineness of the plan and smarten. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, that these documents should have been proved by examining the officer of K.D.A., has no substance.
6. Another point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sanction was no more valid at the time when the impugned order was passed on 15-3-1981. It may be stated that the sanction was granted by the K.D.A. On 12-6-1979 for one year and the ejectment application was filed on 21-7-1979. The respondent/landlord, therefore, had a valid and genuine cause of action on the date of filing the ejectment application. The fact that the sanction expired during the pendency of the ejectment application would not frustrate the cause of action nor would have the effect of rendering the ejectment application infructuous to support of this plea the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the case of Rais Ahmed v. Mian Abdul Jabbar and another PLD 1972 Lah.
711. The above case was filed under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 which contains a similar provision regarding ejectment of tenant on the ground of reconstruction. On the question regarding expiry of the period of sanction during the pendency of ejectment proceedings it was held as under by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court :- "What is required of the Rent Controller under clause (vi) of sub--section (2) of section 17 is to see that the landlord has obtained the requisite sanction which is the basis for moving an application for ejectment, and not that the period within which the construction is to commence is subsisting.
The interests of a tenant are protected by subsection (6) of section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, which lays down : where the landlord who has obtained possession of a building in pursuance of an order made under subsection (5) does not himself. Or where possession of the building has been obtained for any member of his family, such member does not occupy the building within one month of the date of obtain--ing its possession, that tenant who had been evicted may apply to the Collector for an order directing that the possession of such building be restored to him and the Controller may thereon make an order accordingly". However, in the event the landlord fails to obtain the extension of the time and is consequently unable to demolish or reconstruct the building within the prescribed period, he exposes himself to a criminal liability under subsection (7) of section 17 aforesad."
7. 1, therefore hold that there is no substance in the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that due to lapse of the sanction during the ejectment proceedings, the proceedings have become infructuous.
8. In his affidavit the appellant has taken the plea that the actual area on which the disputed premises is situated is much more than the area which legally belongs to the respondent/landlord.
This plea has not been taken by the appellant in his written statement. He shall be deemed to be the tenant of the building which has been rented out to him by the respondent/landlord vide tenancy agreement (Exh. P/I). This agreement relates to House No. G/27 situated in Rizvia Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. Nazimabad. Karachi. 1t is immaterial as to what is the area on which the house is situated. It was house No. G/27 which was let out to the appellant and it is this very house in respect of which sanction for reconstruction has been granted vide K.D.A's order (Exh. P/1).
If there is any additional area which has been included in the sanction then the K.D.A. Authorities shall take care of it. The appellant has no locus standi to challenge the title of the respondent/landlord so far as the rented premises is concerned irrespective of the area on which the premises are situated. I, therefore, hold that the objection of the appellant in respect of the additional area included in the premises in question has no substance.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised an additional plea that the respondent/landlord should also have proved his bona fide requirement for reconstruction of the building. In support of his plea he has relied on PLD 1979 Lah. 317, PLD 1980 Lah. 77 and PLD 1980 SC 206. It may be stated that all these cases relate to the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. This Ordinance was in force at the time when this ejectment application was filed on 21-7-1979. The relevant provision under which the ejectment application has been filed is contained in section 13 subsection (2) Clause (vi), according to which the landlord is required to prove that he reasonably and in good faith requires the building for the purpose of reconstruction. In this connection the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to 1980 SCMR 483 in which it has been held that the only requirement which the landlord is required to prove in order to get possession of the rented premises under section 13(2) (vi) is production of forwarding letter of Municipal Authority sanctioning the reconstruction. It has further been held that if the Rent Controller is satisfied that the sanction is valid then he would be justified in making an order of ejectment. It may be inferred from the above that the satisfaction of the Rent Controller about the genuineness of the sanction for reconstruction by a competent authority implies that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide.
10. I am, therefore, satisfied that the respondent/landlord has proved his bona fide requirement for possession of the premises in question for the purpose of reconstruction. No exception, therefore, can be taken to the order of ejectment passed by the learned Rent Controller. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, granted three months time to vacate the premises.