' This appeal is directed against the order of ejectment passed on 1-9-1981 in Rent Application No, 17/1980, by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Nawabshah, whereby the appellant was ordered to be evicted from the premises in dispute for the reason that the same was required by the respondent/landlord for demolishing the same and reconstruction of a new building at the site.
1. The facts briefly stated are that the respondent claiming to be the owner of the premises bearing C. S. No, 215, Ward 'A', Market Road No, 2, Nawabshah, filed the above-mentioned ejectment application against the appellant on the ground that the latter was a defaulter in payment of rent from January, 1979, that she wanted ejectment of the appellant from the said premises for the purposes of reconstruction for which the plan has been duly approved and sanctioned by the Municipal Committee of respondent.
The appellant/tenant contested the above-mentioned application on various grounds.
2. The following two issues arose for determination by the learned Rent Controller :- "(1) As to whether the opponent committed default in making the payment of rent to the applicant regarding the disputed premises.
(2) As to whether the disputed premises is required by the applicant for demolishing the same and to reconstruct the new building thereon."
3. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence under the issue No, 1 held that appellant/tenant had not committed any default in payment of the rent.
' As regards the Issue No, 2 referred above, the same was answered by him in the affirmative for the reason recorded in the order and it was held that the respondent requires premises in question for reconstruction after demolishing the present structure of the budding and that she requires the disputed premises bona fide for that purpose.
' The impugned order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 1-9-1981, against which this appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been preferred.
4. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties with whose assistance I have gone through the record. The learned Advocates for the parties confined their arguments only on Issue No, 2 reproduced above. Perusal of the record shows that the respondent examined her attorney Syed Akhtar Ali on her behalf. He produced power-of-attorney as Exh. 12-A and copy of City Survey Record as Exh. 13-B. He also deposed that the respondent is a widow aged about 60 years, that she served notice (Exh. 12-C) upon the tenant (appellant) calling upon him to vacate the premises as she requires the same for purposes of reconstruction. In support of the plea that the premises in question, was required for reconstruction, he produced the plan sanctioned by Municipal Committee Nawabshah. The forwarding letter of the Municipal Authority is marked Exh. 12-D and the sanctioned plan has been produced as Exh. 12-E.
' The above witness examined on behalf of the respondent was cross-examined wherein the forwarding le.Tter Exh. 12-D and the approval of the plan Exh. 12-E were not disputed. Suggestion made to him that the building plan was got approved by the respondent with the motive to harass the appellant to compel him to raise the rate of rent, was expressly denied. In his own evidence the appellant/tenant was unable to show that the premises in question was not required by the respondent for the purposes of demolition of the building and reconstruction of a new building on the site, for which the plan had already been approved.
' At the time of the arguments in this Court as well, the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out anything on record which could lead to the conclusion that the respondent does not require premises in question for demolishing the present structure and to reconstruct a building on the site. It may be pointed here that in the case of Messrs Ameeruddin Allah Ditta v.
Seth Adamji Abdullah and others (1), the Honourable Supreme Court while disposing of the petition, challenging the order of the ejectment passed against the tenant on an application moved by the landlord for eviction under section 13(2)(vi) of the then West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), while holding that the findings given by all the Courts below that the landlord genuinely wanted to reconstruct the building for his own use and for which the plan had also been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, were findings of fact, well-based on evidence and did not warrant any interference, held:- "The argument that the respondent's requirement of the new building was neither reasonable nor bona fide was not relevant to the disposal of the ejectment petition filed under section 13(2)(vi) of the Ordinance aforesaid.
' The penal provisions contained in subsection (5) of section 13 of the Ordinance afford an adequate safeguard against a landlord acting in bad faith."
' Reference may also be made here to the case of Muhammad Akbar and another v. Dr. Muhammad Rafique (2), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court in a case, filed for ejectment against the tenant on the ground that he required the premises for reconstruction of the property, observed as follows :- "The requirement of the law is that there should be sanctioned plan of construction or reconstruction of the property and it is, therefore,
(1) 1969 SCM R 131 (2) 1980 SCM R 483 ' immaterial whether the forwarding letter of the Municipal authority concerned is produced or not, if the Court is satisfied that the plan produced is, indeed, a sanctioned plan as required by law.
None of the three Courts, which have dealt with the case, have doubted the genuineness of the sanctioned plan."
5. It would be also relevant to refer here to subsection (3) of section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, which provides safeguard by makin provisions for imposing penalty on a landlord vho obtains possession of the premises for purposes of reconstruction of the building and fails to demolish the existing building within 6 months of taking over of the possession of the premises, or as the case may be fails to commence erection of a new building within the period pi ovided under the law. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ameeruddin Allah Ditta v. Adamji held that the provisions contained in the law afford an adequate safeguard against a landlord acting in bad faith. In the light of the law laid down as above by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan Mr. G.
M. Qureshi, the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller granting ejectment on the ground that the premises in question is required by the respondent for the purposes of demolishing the same and to reconstruct a new building according to the plan duly sanctioned by the appropriate authority.
6. The learned counsel lastly argued that the order of ejectment has been obtained by the respondent by fraud and suppression of material facts. According to the learned counsel the respondent is not the owner of the first floor of the building which according to him has been transferred to some other party. On the basis of these arguments, it was contended that it was not possible for the respondent to demolish the existing building and to reconstruct a new building at the site. At the appellate stage this new plea which raises disputed questions of fact, cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time. No such plea was taken by the appellant before the learned Rent Controller.
' Mr. Burney, the learned counsel for the respondent, however, made categorical statement on behalf of the respondent during his arguments before this Court, that the entire building including the first floor is owned by the respondent and that it was incorrect that any other person is owner of the first floor. He further rightly pointed out that the findings given by the Rent Controller, that the respondent enquiries the premises for demolishing the same and to reconstruct a new building on the site and that the plan has been duly sanctioned are based upon evidence and no valid reason has been shown to interfere with the same.
7. In view of the discussion as above, I have no hesitation, on the material on record, to hold that the premises in dispute is required by the respondent for the purposes of demolishing the same and for reconstructing a new building at the site and that the respondent has obtained the necessary plan sanctioned for such reconstruction from the authority competent under the law to give the sanction. I am also of the opinion as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, that the law provides adequate safeguard against a landlord acting in bad faith.
' I would also like to mention here that while holding as above, I have taken into consideration the statement made by Mr. Burney, the learned Advocate for the respondent during his arguments, which I have incorporated as above in this judgment, that the respondent is the owner of the whole building.
' The upshot of the discussion as above is that this appeal is without any substance and is accourdingly dismissed. The appellant, however, is granted six months' time t' vacate the premises.
' The above are the reasons for the short order passed by me on 9th October, 1983. n