Appellant above-named, being aggrieved by judgment dated 16-2-1980 of the District Judge, Thatta in First Rent Appeal No. 2 of 1979, has preferred this 1Ind Appeal, inter alia on the following facts and grounds: The respondent above-named filed an ejectment application against the appellant on the ground that he requires the premises in occupation of the appellant for purposes of reconstruction. The appellant above-named filed his written statement in which he denied the allegations of the respondent and further submitted that the respondent had filed ejectment application mala fide as the appellant refused to enhance the rent of the premises in his occupation as desired by the respondent. The appellant had further stated in his said written statement that the building in question was in good condition.
2. On the basis of the above pleadings the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether suit premises is in dilapidated condition and opponent/ respondent requires the same in good faith for re-construction?
(ii) What should the order be?
3. The respondent examined himself and one P. W. Kewalram, whereas appellant examined himself only before the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence led before him and documents produced and after hearing the arguments of the learned Advocates of both the parties, dismissed respondent's applica--tion for ejectment, for the reasons given by him in his order dated 23rd December, 1978.
4. The respondent above-named being aggrieved by the order dated 23rd December, 1978, of the learned Rent Controller preferred 1st Rent Appeal No. 2 of 1979 in the Court of District Judge, Thatta, Sind who after perusing the records and proceedings of the learned Rent Controller and after hearing the arguments of learned Advocates of both the parties, set aside the order dated 23rd December, 1978 of learned Rent Controller, Thatta, Sind and granted respondents application on ground of re-construction, for the reasons given by him in his judgment dated 16th February, 1980.
5. The appellant abovenamed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th February, 1980 of the learned District Judge, Thatta, has preferred this second appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal.
6. I have gone through the records and proceedings of both the learned lower Courts as well as through their respective judgment and order in question and have taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both the parties and have taken into consideration various authorities cited by both the parties.
7. The main contentions raised by the learned Advocate of the appellant before me were:- That the application for ejectment was filed mala fide in order to get the rent of the premises enhanced.
(ii) That the order of the learned Rent Controller is based on cogent reasons and as such it has been wrongly set aside by the learned District Judge, Thatta, as the learned Rent Controller rightly held, that the respondent failed to produce any evidence to prove that the premises in question were in dangerous condition nor he had examined any person from the Municipal Committee, Thatta nor had produced any notice from the said Municipal Committee to show that the premises in occupation of the appellant are in dangerous condition and further the learned Rent Controller held that since respondent produced no evidence to prove that he had obtained possession of survey Nos. 2888 and 2890, which are adjacent to the premises of the appellant, which are also to be used for purposes of proposed re-construction, he came to the conclusion that the respondent does not require the premises in occupation of the appellant for purposes of re-construction bona fide.
(i.e) That the permission for re-construction issued by Thatta Municipal Committee shows that it relates to Ward `A' whereas the premises in occupation of the appellant are situated in Ward `B'. It was further urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the correction of the same of the respondent in approved plan is not initiated and as such according to the said plans the owner of the proposed construc--tions is not the respondent but some lady.
8. The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of his contention, that the respondent had filed ejectment application in question mala fide submitted that as appellant has refused to enhance the rent of the premises in his occupation, respondent had filed the said application to harass the appellant. I have carefully considered this submission of the appellant and have gone through the records and proceedings of the trial Court and I am afraid, I cannot agree with this contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant, as respondent has refuted in his statement on oath the said allegation and as such there is only word against word, on this aspect and in the absence of any other independent evidence to support this contention of the appellant, I am not prepared to consider this allegation, even if it was correct, to attribute mala fides to the respondent for filing ejectment application, on this ground, as alleged by the appellant. In this connection the statement of P. W. Kewalram clearly shows, that he has been given contract for construction of the proposed buildings by the respondent and further more according to this witness, the premises in occupation of the appellant are very old and are made of wood and mud. This evidence of P. W.
Kewalram has remained unchallenged as no question refuting these allegations was put to this witness in his cross-examination. In view of this evidence on record, I am of the opinion, that the respondent had filed ejectment application in question bona fide in order to put up new construc-- tions in place of old wood and mud constructions, to which the respondent has every right, in order to improve the yield of income from his property in question. Further more it may be noted that respondent before me, offered to enter into reasonable agreement for re-admitting the appellant in newly-constructed building, but this offer of the respondent was turned down by the appellant.
This also goes to prove the bona fides of the respon--dent to put up new construction in the place of the old construction bona fide. Therefore, I see no force in this contention raised by the appellant, in view of the evidence on record.
9. The second contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant that the learned Rent Controller has given cogent reasons for rejecting respondent's application for ejectment, also in my opinion, has no force. The learned Rent Controller in my view has misconstrued the relevant provisions of section 13 relating to re-construction. The law does no require that landlord must establish that the old construction which h wishes to demolish for purposes of re-construction are in the dilapidated or C dangerous condition, before ejectment application filed by him could be granted. 1, therefore, do not agree with observations and conclusions of the learned Rent Controller in this connection.
The only point to be considered in such application is, whether the premises are reasonably in good faith . Required by the landlord for re-construction of a building on the site in question. In this connection the learned District Judge, Thatta, relied upon cases reported in PLD 1972 Quetta 39; PLD 1978 Lah. 728 which fully support the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge, Thatta.
The learned District Judge further relied on case reported in 1969 SCMR 131 in which it was observed that the landlord's requirement of new building whether it was neither reasonable nor bona fide, was not relevant to the disposal of the ejectment application filed under section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, as the penal provi--sions contained in subsection (5) of section 13 of the said Ordinance, afforded an adequate safeguard against the landlord acting in bad faith. The learned District Judge, Thatta further relied on case reported in PLD 1972 Quetta 39, which it was held, that any re-construction which would enable the landlord substantially to develop or improve his property, -would be reasonable within the meaning of clause (vi). This view was also upheld in the case reported in PLD 1977 Kar. 581. The last case relied on by the learned District Judge, Thatta was also reported in 1979 CLC'. 757 in which it was held, that even if building is not in a dilapidated condition, the landlord can re-construct the same for purposes of enhancing value. The reasoning of the learned Rent Controller, that respondent has not proved, that he has acquired possession of adjacent Plots Nos. 2888 and 2893, without which he cannot carry out the proposed construction, has also no force, as the proposed plan which is on record shows, that the proposed construction could be raised in phases and as such the constructions which are proposed to be raised on the survey number in occupation of the appellant can be raised independently of the constructions which are proposed to be raised on the adjoining plots. In view of this, I do not agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Judge, Thatta, in this connection. It may further be noted that respondent before me offered to enter into reasonable agreement with the appellant for his re-admission in the proposed new constructions, but this offer was turned down by the appellant. This action on the part of the respondent further goes to prove his bona file intention for purposes of re--construction.
10. As far as the third contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant is concerned, I have examined the approved plan produced before the trial Court, which clearly shows, that the survey numbers in question are situated in Ward 'B' and obviously there is mistake in the letter dated 21st February, 1978 of the Administrator, Peoples Municipal Committee, Thatta, which mistake has been corrected by the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Thatta vide letter dated 2i-5-1981, which has been produced by the respondent through application CMA-1940/81 dated 21st May, 1931, for which I had issued notice to the appellant who did not file any objections to the said application. As far as the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the approved plan does not show respondent as the owner, I have examined the said approved plan and find that the same has been signed by the respondent, as owner, no doubt in the heading printed originally, name of some lady was mentioned as owner, but the said name was struck of and the name of the respondent was mentioned in her place. However, this correction made in ink is not initiated by the Officer of the Thatta Municipal Committee, but the approved plan is actually signed by the respondent as owner and as such non-initial of this correction in my opinion does not in any way support the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the respondent is not the owner of the proposed construction and plans produced by the respondent relate to some other property.
12. In view of my above conclusions, I see no force in the above appeal, which is consequently dismissed with no orders as to costs. However, appellant is allowed four months time from today to vacate the premises in his occupation and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent, provided he continues to deposit the rent in the trial Court according to the tentative rent order passed by the learned Rent Controller.