' This is a landlord's appeal against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, dated 6th May, 1917 by which the order of the Rent Controller, Multan, dated 3rd January, 1977 ordering the eviction of the respondent was set aside.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 8th March, 1975 the appellant filed a petition for the eviction of the respondent from shop No, 3483, Ward No, 8 Muslim, Purani Sabzi Mandi Road, Multan which is in his occupation on monthly rent of Rs,
85. The 'sole ground for the eviction of the respondent claimed by the appellant was bona fide requirement for reconstruction as the properly in question according to the appellant was in a much dilapidated condition. This application was contested by the respondent and it was specifically stated that the sole purpose of the appellant was to enhance the monthly rent. It was further contended that the appellant was estopped by his conduct to file the petition for eviction. The issues framed on account of the respective contentions of the parties were to the follow-
(1) Whether the appellant requires the property in dispute bona fide for reconstruction ? 0. P. A.
(2) Whether the appellant is estopped to bring the present petition ? 0. P. R.
(3) Whether the respondent is entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C. P. C. ?
(4) Relief.
3. A perusal of the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 6th May, 1977 would show that he had reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller for very sound and valid reasons.
The learned Rent Controller had ordered the eviction of the respondent on the ground that he was satisfied from the production of the permission obtained from the Municipal Corporation, Multan that the appellant actually intended to reconstruct the shop in question after demolishing the same. It was further observed that the state of the building was wholly immaterial. The various factors brought on record to discount the bona fides of the appellant were not given their due weight.
4. After the perusal of the evidence on record I find that the evidence of the appellant that the shop in question was in a dilapidated condition stands sufficiently rebutted by the statement of Khizar Hayat R. W. 1, a Cantonment Board Engineer. He is a qualified Engineer and has produced Exh. R. 1, a certificate of the fitness of the building. He also stated that the building had been constructed only 12/14 years back. The examination of the condition of the building is material for the disposal of the present appeal for the reason that according to the respondent the shop had been reconstructed in 1962 after getting the plan sanctioned and therefore, the question of reconstruction of the same by virtue of a second plan sanctioned on 18th February, 1975 did not arise. The appellant is admitted to have made an application to Muhammad Aslam Javed R. W. 2 who was the President of Anjuman Falahi Bahbood Tajran, Purani Sabzi Mandi, Multan wherein he had prayed for the intervention of the good offices of the Anjuman for the increase of the rent of the shop in dispute from Rs, 85 to Rs, 300 and also for getting the payment of Rs, 5,000 as a premium for theappellant's personal need. The application Exh. R. 2 makes a pleasant reading. It has been stated in the application that the cog of every thing has gone up and as such the respondent cannot be allowed to retain the shop on a monthly rent of Rs,
85. The demand of the appellant has already been noted above. He has also stated that he had issued receipts for the payment of the last two months' rent but actually the respondent had not paid the rent for this period and also he was liable to pay the arrears for a period of 23 years. The respondent was called and vide endorsement Exh. R. 3 on this application which is dated 24th October, 1974, the respondent seems to have agreed only to the enhancement of the reat to the extent of Rs, 15 only.
In view of the fact that the parties could not reconcile the application was ordered to be filed.
Previously the rent had been got increased from Rs, 50 to Rs,
85. It is also established on record that the appellant filed an application for eviction against one Muhammad Bashir his tenant on the ground of reconstruction and procured the order of eviction against him and allowed him to continue in the shop on his executing a rent-note on 14th April, 1977 on the payment of the enhanced rent of Rs, 300. This was precisely the amount which the appellant has expected from the respondent. The shop constitutes the part and parcel of the same building which the appellant intends to reconstruct.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has only argued that since' there are proper safeguards available to the respondent under subsection (5-B) of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance and as such the bona fides of the appellant could not be examined. This argument cannot be entertained in view of the fact that in respect of the ground of recons-A truction there was an amendment in 1965 in sub-clause (vi) of subsection (2) of section 13, the words 'reasonably and in good faith' were added by virtue of section 5 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act of 1965. The amended sub-clause (vi)' of subsection (2) reads as follows :
(vi) the building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for the reconstruction or erection of a building on the site, and the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for the said reconstruction or erection from the Town Improvement Trust, Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee or Town Committee for the area where such building or rented land is situated.
6. The question of applying the safeguard would only apply in case! The initial burden of the bona fide reconstruction has been discharged. B It has already been noted above that the learned Additional District Judge has for valid reasons come to the conclusion that the shop I question was not required in good faith by the appellant. The question whether the appellant requires the shop in good faith being a question of fact cannot be disturbed in the second appeal as the same is based on C proper appreciation of evidence and the learned counsel for the appellant could not submit any explanation in respect of the points that had been taken note of by the learned Additional District Judge and re-examined by me. In the case reported as Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Nazir Ali (I) it was held by Mr. Justice Aftab Hussain after the examination of entire case law that clause
(vi) of subsection (2) of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance provides that the landlord should prove that he requires the rented premises in good faith for reconstruction. It was further deserved that good faith is a condition precedent for requirement for reconstruction in section 13
(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance.
7. This appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs.