' This appeal is directed against the order of S.C.J. and R.C. Thatta, dated 29-11-1981 whereby he had rejected the application for ejectment filed by the appellant against the respondent.
2. The appellant has sought ejectment of the respondent from shop premises on C.S. No, 1426, Ward 'B', Shahi Bazar, Thatta on the ground of reconstruction of premises based upon a plan duly approved by Municipality and also on the ground that the premises had been leased out only for il months from 11-1-1979 and the time had expired.
3. The respondent denied the allegations in the application and stated that the permission from the Municipality had been obtained by misrepresentation and that it was cancelled. He further stated that he had paid rent after January, 1980 and, therefore, there was continuation of tenancy.
4. Two issues were framed:- "(1) Whether opponent is liable to vacate the premises after expiry of the agreement?
(2) Whether applicant requires the premises for reconstruction?"
' The evidence was recorded. Abu Bakar husband of Mst. Fatima proved the averments contained in the application. He was cross-examined and he denied that the reconstruction was for the purposes of enhancement of rent. He also denied that the reconstruction permission had been obtained on the basis of misrepresentation. He was also cross-examined on the point that the premises were not in a dilapidated condition but he asserted that the premises were in bad shape.
He also produced a letter from Thatta Municipality dated 5-2-1981 where the Municipality had declared that the building construction permission already granted on 1-12-1980 stands valid and the office letter No, 28, dated 29-1-1981 has been withdrawn. One Khan Muhammad, Clerk of Municipality was examined in support of application and he stated that Municipality had permitted the reconstruction of the premises and had passed building plan. In cross-examination he has stated that he had issued certificate for permission for reconstruction on 1-2-1980. No other cross- examination of any significance was done.
' Muhammad Siddique opponent examined himself and he stated that he had paid rent upto June, 1980 and that the appellant had approached him for enhancement of rent but he had refused and they had threatened for the ejectment. He further stated that he made representation to Municipality that shop was in good condition and misrepresentation had been made by the appellant and he, therefore, succeeded to obtain cancellation of the sanction. He further stated that he had expended Rs,5,000 on the fitting of the shop for running business of shoes. In cross- examination he asserted that rented shops were made of R.C.C. in Thatta. He denied that the shop was not in good condition.
5. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh has not pressed the appeal on the point of expiry of the agreement and rightly so because rent had been accepted after the expiry of the agreement in January, 1980 and henceA the new tenancy had come into existence after expiry of original period of tenancy.
6. Mr. Muhammad All Shaikh then contended that the permission for reconstruction having been granted by Municipality and the building plan having been approved, the bona fide need for reconstruction of the premises had been fully established and the Rent Controller had no justification to disallow the request for ejectment merely on the basis that rent had been refused or that the respondent had invested a big amount in show room fittings. The Rent Controller was not justified in treating the matter of reconstruction as not bona fide merely because the appellant had served notice upon the respondent on 7-9-1980 asking to vacate the premises merely on the ground that the construction plan was approved by Municipality only on 1-12-1980. He submitted that the appellant had intended to apply for reconstruction permission to Municipality and, therefore, merely sending a letter before the construction of plan was approved would not militate against the bona fides of the appellant particularly when the Municipality had allowed the plan. His contention was that the Rent Controller should have relied upon the construction plan as it had been duly passed before the application for ejectment was moved. I am of the view that the plan for reconstruction having been approved by the Municipality the Ren Controller should have proceeded on that basis and his refusal for ejectment was not justified. In the circumstances of this case, as it is, the wish of the landlord for improving condition of his property should prevail. Mere sending of a notice before seeking permission from the Municipality does not militate against the bona fides of landlord. And so also the non-acceptance of rent does not vitiate the building plan obtained by the landlord as in the present case a dispute had started between the parties in respect of the continuation of the agreement of tenancy after its expiry and the landlord under some wrong impression was claiming that since the agreement had expired, therefore, he was entitled to get ejectment.
7. The Municipality at first approved the plan in 1980 and then under some representation made by respondent had cancelled the same in 1981 and then on 5-2-1981 it withdrew the cancellation order. The net result of which was that the original sanctioned plan continued to be valid.
8. The Rent Controller in these circumstances should have ordered the ejectment of the appellant on the ground of reconstruction. The position today is much better for the respondent as on 30th July, 1984 subsection (4) of section 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been added and a right had been conferred upon the tenant who had been ejected from a premises on the basis of reconstruction of the building, to apply to the Controller before the completion of the new building that he be put in possession of such area in the new building as it does not exceed the area of the old building of which he was an occupant. This being the position today it is all the more just and proper that the ejectment order should be issued against the respondent directing him to vacate the shop in question for the purposes of reconstruction as the respondent has the added right conferred upon him by the addition of subsection (4) of section 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
9. I, therefore, accept this appeal and direct the respondent to vacate the premises in his possession after 6 months of this order subject to the payment of rent by him regularly. "he respondent will be entitled to get refund of Rs,3,000 which he had admittedly deposited with the appellant. The same may be adjusted out of the rent which may be due to the appellant and the balance would be liable to be returned to the respondent by the appellant on the expiry of the 6 months' period before taking over the possession. Direct writ of attachment will be issued after the period of 6 months. The appeal is disposed of in terms of above order.