1. ' The appellant is a tenant in respect of shop on plot bearing No, 13-A SB-6 Abdullah Haroon Road, Karachi. The respondent filed an application for ejectment against -the appellant on the ground that he wants to reconstruct a multistoreyed building for which the Karachi Building Control Authority has granted its sanction and approved the plan. The appellant denied the contention. He denied the title of the respondent as claimed and pleaded that the plan has been obtained by misrepresentation of facts. The learned Controller by the impugned order allowed the application, ' Mr. Ali Ahmad Fazeel the learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the approved plan has been suspended the learned Controller should not have granted ejectment on the basis of the plan produced before him. The learned counsel has not challenged other findings of the learned Controller regarding character of the property and the ownership acquired by the respondent. He has restricted the challenge only to the afore stated contention. Before dealing with this contention it would be proper to state some relevant facts.
2. ' The respondent bad applied for no objection certificate and approval of the plan to Karachi Building Control Authority hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority' which by letter, dated 10-2-1981 was granted inter alia on the following term: "The Building plans for the above-mentioned plot attached herewith are hereby approved and you are permitted to carry out construction on the said accordingly: Provided that it does not entitle you to build on land not lawfully conveyed to you nor it includes permission to occupy any land of road of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, the Karachi Development Authority or the Government or any other Local Authority with the building material: ' Provided that the right of easement is a matter between the concerned parties with which the Authority has no concern: ' Provided that this holds good only, if the work is started within one year from the date where after it shall be deemed to have lapsed."
3. ' When the matter proceeded before the Controller, the sanction and approval of plan was challenged on the only plea that it has been obtained by misrepresentation. However, the admitted position is that during the pendency of the case the validity of the approved plan had lapsed. The respondent had filed his affidavit of evidence on 7-12-1982 and his cross-examination was completed on 22-1-1983. During these proceedings neither of the parties disclosed that the plan has been suspended by the Authority. It seems that on 23-7-1983 the appellant filed an application before the Controller for summoning the Authority for production of letter dated 1-6- 1983. In the affidavit it was stated that after the lapse of approval on 9-2-1982, the Authority has refused to renew the plan which has been suspended. The respondent filed his counter-affidavit in which it was stated that the building plan was first renewed on 9-2-1982 for a period of one year and it was further renewed on 8-24983 for another year. It was denied that any letter has been received intimating the suspension of the plan. However on 1-8-1983 the respondent filed a copy of the letter dated 1-6-1983 alleging in the affidavit that it has been illegally issued by the Authority.
4. This letter reads as follows :- "There are tenants in the building cited above, therefore the renewal of building plan granted vide No, BCA/DCB-VIII/Prop-3998/BC/1, dated 1st February, 1983 is hereby suspended till an agreement is executed with the tenants.
5. ' You are hereby advised to execute an agreement with the tenants and furnish a copy to this department, till then no work should be done."
6. ' The learned Controller, however, by the impugned order, dated 28-8-1983 granted the ejectment application.
7. ' The respondent No, 1 in his counter-affidavit to the appellant's application for stay of the impugned order has filed a copy of the order of the Authority dated 11-10-1983 whereby the plan has been restored. This letter reads as follows:- "The renewal of your building plan for above-mentioned plot which was suspended by this department vide No, BCA/DCB-VIII, dated 1-6-1983, is hereby restored now."
8. ' In reply to this affidavit the appellant filed his affidavit dated 13-5-1984 and enclosed photo copy of a circular of Karachi Development Authority dated 3rd December, 1983 which reads as follows :- "As per Governing Body Resolution No, 518 of the Governing Body meeting held on 1st December, 1983, it has been decided that following action should be taken in respect of reconstruction of buildings, which are occupied by tenants
(1) No permission for reconstruction of a building on plot should be accorded by the Building Control Authority with existing structure under occupation by tenants unless agreement is arrived at between the landlord and the tenant for alternate accommodation or mutually agreed compensation.
(2) Any permission if already given by the Building Control Authority will stand suspended with immediate effect if no physical construction has been started and the premises are still occupied by the tenants.
9. ' The Building Control Authority will take immediate action in this regard and follow these instructions strictly."
10. ' The appellant also filed an affidavit, dated 10th April, 1984 enclosing a photo copy of the Authority's letter dated 15-12-1963 and a public notice dated 9.4-1984 notifying the Regulation which are reproduced as follows :- "The renewal of your Building Plan which was Rest vide No, BCA/ DCB-VIII/592 83, dated 11-10-1983, is hereby withdrawn.
11. ' You are therefore advised to execute an agreement with the tenant and furnish the copy of the same so that your cases may reconsider."
12. "In exercise of the powers conferred under section 21(A) of the Sind Building Control Ordinance No, V of 1979 (as amended upto date), the Authority is pleased to frame make the following regulations namely
1. Short title, commencement and extent.-(1) These regulations may be called the Karachi Building Control Regulations, 1984.
(2) These regulations shall come into force at once.
(3) These regulations shall extend to the whole of Karachi Division.
2. Definitions.-"Authority" means the Karachi Building Control Authority.
13. Regulations.-(1) Approval of Building Plans or permission for reconstruction of buildings over plot or plots having existing structure under occupation of tenant/tenants shall not be accorded by the Authority unless an agreement is arrived by the Landlord/Owner and the Tenant for alternate accommodation or for mutually agreed compensation.
(2) All permissions accorded/granted by the Authority wherein an agreement between Landlord/Owner and the Tenant/Tenants has not been submitted are hereby suspended with immediate effect if no physical construction has been started in pursuance of the permission/approval already accorded, and the premises are still occupied by the tenant."
14. ' From the afore stated facts it is clear that the letters dated 11-10-1983, 15-12-1983 and the public notice dated 9-4-1984 notifying the Regulation framed by the Authority in the year 1984 were not before the learned Controller. The only document before him was the letter dated 1-6-1983.
15. ' Mr. Ali Ahmed Fazed, contended that when the learned Controller passed the order no approved plan was in existence and therefore, he could not have passed the ejectment order. The ejectment is being sought under section 15, sub-clause (vi) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 according to which the Controller is empowered to grant ejectment if "the premises is required by the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a new building at the site and the landlord has obtained necessary sanction for such reconstruction or erection from the Authority competent under any law for the time being in force to give such sanction." The requirement of law is that the landlord has to obtain necessary sanction for reconstruction or erection of the building from a competent authority. The question falls for consideration whether grant of sanction for reconstruction and approval of plan is a condition precedent for filing ejectment case. The law on this point is now well settled as laid down in Qamardin v. Mrs. K. Taleh Begum (1), where it was observed :- "This clause (section 13(2) (vi) may be said to include two important ingredients. One, the rented premises is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for reconstruction. Two, the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for the reconstruction. It will be seen that cause of action can arise to a landlord if he reasonably requires the rented premises in good faith for reconstruction. In other words if he states this much in his ejectment application, his application would be maintainable and the Rent Controller cannot refuse to entertain it. As far as the second ingredient regarding sanction for reconstruction from the Municipal or such like authority is concerned, it would be a condition precedent for the success of ejectment application. But if there is a sanction and it is valid is a matter which will have to be seen from the evidence and argument stage respectively because the existence. Of sanction will be a matter of proof and its validity a question for argument. But to say that a condition precedent for the final favourable outcome of the landlord's application is also a condition precedent for the making of the application under clause (vi) of subsection (2) of section 13 does not appear to be correct. In the instant case a plea based on clause (vi) of subsection (2) of section 13 had admittedly been raised in the application but the sanction for reconstruction had not been obtained at the time of making the application.
16. ' We feel that the plea having been raised by the respondent was sufficient to make his application maintainable."
17. If the landlord is able to produce the sanction during the pendency
(1) 1980 SCMR 608 of the ejectment application, the provisions of law are substantially met and the application cannot be rejected on the ground that sanction was not produced at the time of filing the application or its validity has expired before or after filing the ejectment application or during its pendency. It is also well-settled that if during the pendency of the ejectment application validity of the approved plan has expired then on that basis also A as held in 1981 SCMR 782 the application cannot be rejected as to get sanction renewed is only a formality. Therefore, the expiry of the validity period is not fatal to the landlord's application for ejectment. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that in fact the Authority has suspended the plan, and therefore, no valid plan exists in the eyes of law, and ejectment could not have been granted.
18. ' The word 'suspend' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows: "Suspend" : to interrupt, to cause or cease for a time, to postpone, to stay, delay or hinder to discontinue temporarily, but with an expectation or purpose of resumption, to cause a temporary cessation as of work by an employee."
19. ' In Ballentine's Law Dictionary the word 'suspend' has been defined as follows :- "Temporarily inactive or inoperative, held in abeyance."
20. The word 'suspend' does not connote the meaning of cancellation or revocation of any permission or licence. It only temporarily deprives of the rights or privileges under the permission. Therefore, whenever any permission or licence is suspended, only its operation is kept in abeyance, but its existence is retained. By letter dated 1-6-1983 the Authority had suspended the renewal of the building plan granted on 9-2-1982 but it had not cancelled it. It therefore, follows that the approval of the building plan was kept alive, but its operation had been delayed, and till further order by the Authority construction could not be made by the respondent on the basis of this plan.
21. At the time when the learned Controller passed the order only letter dated 1-6.1983 had been produced and all other letters and the Regulation were issued afterwards. Therefore, he could have taken, into consideration only letter dated 1-6-1983, and in view of mere suspension of the building plan the ejectment application could not be rejected. If the expiry of the period of validity of the plan, during the pendency of the ejectment application cannot be a ground for its dismissal how could on its mere suspension the application be rejected.
22. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to all the afore stated letters and the Regulation and contended that in the absence of a valid approved plan no ejectment order can be passed. At this stage the learned counsel wants to press in service the letters and the Regulation which were issued after the Controller had granted the ejectment application. These facts cannot invalidate the impugned order as they were not in existence when it was passed. The question is whether the appellate Court should take into account the subsequent events and look into the letters issued after 28-8-1983 and the Regulation. Ordinarily such evidence could be taken into consideration if it is properly produced and the other side has the opportunity to rebut it. It is significant to note that both the parties at D their sweet will have been filing documents along with their affidavits but none of them have sought to produce them as additional evidence. Such procedure of producing documents should be disapproved. If a party wants to produce any additional evidence he should make proper application and use it in evidence only after due permission has been granted by the Court. In this regard it is pertinent to note that none of the parties have objected to the production of the copies of letters and the Regulation and have frequently referred to them during arguments. In fact the entire argument of both the learned counsel has revolved round these documents. In these circumstances, I have taken them into consideration.
23. The learned counsel for the appellant wants to challenge the impugned order on the basis of subsequent events. An appellate Court can take note of subsequent events that might happen during the pendency of the matter provided no prejudice is caused to the other side. The subsequent legislation can be taken into consideration for deciding the matter. Reference can be made to Mst. Amina Begurn and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir (1) and The Province of East Pakistan v. Muhammad Hossain Mia (2).
24. ' Mr. A. A. Fazeel the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as the Controller has limited jurisdiction under the Ordinance and so does the appellate authority, 'the order suspending the plan or the Regulation framed by the Authority cannot be challenged before him, nor can the appellate Court inquire into the validity of the Regulation. In this regard the learned counsel has referred to Ch. Ghulam Muhammad v. Khalid Mahmood (3), where the following observation was made :- "The determination of the question whether the P. T. D. Issued in favour of the appellant in violation of rules 2 and 3 of the Permanent Transfer Rules is valid or not is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Controller and similarly of all the higher Courts deciding the matter under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. This view has been taken by me in Habibullah v. Mahmud Amad Khan PLD 1973 Note 109 at p.
165. The Rent Controller is only empowered to see the Provisional Transfer Order or the Permanent Transfer Deed/ Order as the case may be, issued in favour of a particular party. Even if it is inconsistent with the order proposing transfer its rectification, if any, can be made by the competent Settlement authority and thereafter at some other higher forum. The Rent Controller in such a case cannot rely upon any other order, except the P. T.
0. Or P. T. D., issued in favour of a person. It however does not mean that if a party contesting the ejectment application urges before the learned Controller that the P. T.
0. Or P. T. D., as the case may be, having been cancelled, the same is no more effective and as such the petitioner in an ejectment application being no more transferee of the property cannot file the said application, the Controller will have no jurisdiction to decide such matter. According to law he will be obliged. To decide as to whether the P. T.
0. Or P. T. D. Stands cancelled or not and determine the fate of the ejectment application accordingly. He however cannot examine the validity or otherwise of any such Transfer Order which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent Settlement authority."
25. ' The learned counsel for the appellant also referred to Abdul Kar,'m v. Muhammad Ibrahim (4), where the tenant referring to the Settlement Scheme No, IV contended that he was entitled to transfer and the -P. T.
0. Issued (1)PLD 1978 SC 220 (2) PLD 1965 SC I
(3) PLD 1977 Lah. 110 (4) 1976 SCMR 79 in favour of the Lind lord was void and he was not liable to ejectment, it was held:- "As rightly held by the High Court, the Settlement Authorities in exercise of their exclusive jurisdiction had transferred the house in dispute in favour of the respondent who having paid the price was issued a P. T.
0. The petitioner who had failed to file any appeal or revision against the transfer of the house in favour of the respondent, cannot now agitate against the transfer before the Rent Controller who exercises a limited jurisdiction under the Ordinance."
26. ' Mr. S. M. Sadiq the learned counsel for the respondent has attempted to distinguish these two authorities on the ground that under the Settlement Laws finality was attached to the order passed by the Settlement Authorities and; therefore, the same could not be challenged before any other Court or Tribunal.
27. ' In this regard reference can be made to Chief Settlement Commissioner Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil (1), in which the principle for challenging the validity of order or the decision by way of collateral attack has been exhaustively discussed and the observation relevant to the present controversy is as follows "We are, therefore, of the view that even a tribunal of limited or special jurisdiction has the power to suo moto recall or review an order obtained from it by fraud.
28. ' However, in the matter of collateral impeachment of such an order, the position appears to 'be different. Whereas, a superior Court or a Court of general jurisdiction has the power to disregard, as a nullity, an order obtained by fraud or collusion, or on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the Court or authority making it, such a power is not available to a tribunal which either acts in an administrative capacity, or enjoys only a special or limited jurisdiction in a defined sphere."
29. The Controller derives his jurisdiction from the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance and cannot exercise jurisdiction beyond the limits prescribed by it. The Controller is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and possesses only those powers which are conferred on him by the relevant statute.
30. He cannot decide question where vires or validity of any legislation, Rule or Regulation has been challenged. Such disputes fall within the domain of a civil Court. While dealing with appeal under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance the appellate Court also exercises the same jurisdiction which is exercised by the Controller, therefore, the appellate Court will not arrogate the jurisdiction of a civil Court and give its verdict on the validity of any Rule or Regulation. Once sanction and approval has been produced the Controller would be empowered to see that it has been issued 2 by a competent authority and not by a person who is not authorised to issue such sanction and approval. If he comes to the conclusion that it has not been issued by a competent authority he may refuse to accept it.
31. ' Mr. Sadiq the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the plan has been suspended under an administrative instruction, and that the Regulations framed by the Authority cannot be made applicable to the respondent's case, firstly because the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979 hereinafter referred as Sind Building Control. Ordinance does not govern
(1) PLD 1975 SC 331 the relationship of landlord and tenant, and secondly, the Regulation relied upon by the appellant is not with retrospective effect. The Regulation has been framed by the Sind Building Control Authority under the powers conferred by section 21-A of the S. B. C. Ordinance, 1979 as amended in 1982. It empowers the Authority to frame Regulations not in inconsistent with the provision of the Ordinance for carrying out the purposes of the S. B. C. Ordinance. Subsection (2) of the section 21-A provides that the Regulation may be framed inter alia for the manner of approval and grant of no objection certificate to builders or developers. One of the functions of the Authority is to grant approval for the building plan submitted by the builders. The purpose of the Ordinance is "to regulate the planning, quality of construction, building control, prices, charges and publicity made for disposal of plots by builders and societies and demolition of dangerous and dilapidated buildings". The learned counsel contended that the rights of the tenants and landlords in respect of buildings which are required to be demolished and new buildings are to be re-erected on that site, are regulated by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance hereinafter referred as the Rent Ordinance.
32. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Regulation purporting to regulate the rights of landlord and tenant is illegal and ultra vires the power of the Authority. The argument raised by the learned counsel seems to be attractive but the fact remains that in the proceedings, it is not possible to challenge the Regulation which has been framed by the Authority.
33. The same can be challenged either by way of appeal, when the sanction is refused, cancelled or suspended or through a Constitution Petition or by filing a suit for declaration. Considering the functions of the Authority and purpose of the Ordinance the Authority can impose conditions on the landlord while granting sanction, approval or renewal of the building plan. Unless such conditions are imposed by unauthorised persons or seem to be patently in F conflict with the provision of law, the Controller or the appellate Court will not investigate in its validity. The Authority has been empowered to grant approval of building plan and no objection certificate for construction. Grant of such certificate and approval are to be regulated by the Rules and Regulations which are framed for effective enforcement of the S. B. C. Ordinance. The Authority can, therefore, impose conditions while granting permission for demolition of the building and erection of a new building. It cannot overlook the rights of the tenants, who occupy the premises and have a valuable interest in it. The tenancy right is valuable right and unless otherwise provided by law it cannot be lost merely because the landlord wants to demolish the building and erect a new building. Therefore, if for re-erection of a new building the Authority imposes reasonable conditions which are not in conflict with the Sind G Building Control Ordinance the same would be valid and proper. Conscious of the jurisdiction under which 1 am dealing with the matter, I would refrain from commenting whether the Regulation is ultra vire or invalid. Suffice to say that are the purpose of limited investigation which can be made in this appeal, the Regulation is not patently void or illegal.
34. ' No doubt the relationship of landlord and tenant is to be governed by the Rent Ordinance, 1979 which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Controller to deal with matters specified therein. There may be matters of varying nature which may not be covered by the Sind Rented Premises '-1rdinance, 1979, for instance before the amendment in the Rent Ordinance in July, 1984 whereby section 15(4) has been added, the tenants were not entitled to claim possession of such area in the new building which he was occupying in the old building. Before this amendment, from 1979 till July, 1984 no remedy was provided by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. Perhaps to overcome this situation the Regulation was framed. The Authority while granting permission to demolish a building and approving a plan for reconstruction uproots and displaces the tenants. Therefore if conditions' are imposed to protect their interest it is neither unjust or inequitable, Such conditions are intended to maintain balance and avoid uneven advantage to any party. The Authority can therefore impose such conditions which, are practical, balanced, and protect the r. Interest of both the parties. In this regard it may be pointed out that" Regulation No, 1 is not specific in terms. To make it more certain and workable the Authority must provide the terms of agreement contemplated in Regulation No, 1 as leaving it for settlement between the parties i' bound to open floodgate of fresh controversies, bargaining and cause endless delays.
35. The provisions of Rent Ordinance regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant. The benefit of section 15(3) and (4) can be availed of only by those tenants against whom ejectment case has been filed and who have been ordered to be ejected from the premises. Those tenants who wish to vacate the premises without entering into any litigation will not be entitled to the protection afforded by section 15(3) and (4). They can only protect their right if they enter into an agreement which is likely I to lead to great inconvenience, delay and complications. Therefore, the Regulation will be protecting the right of such tenants also who cannot avail of the benefits provided by the Rent Ordinance. It is a matter for consideration that where the Rent Ordinance and the Regulation have afforded protection to the tenant, some time limit should be fixed during which the tenant should vacate the premises failing which they may be deprived of such protection. Likewise time for completing the construction should be fixed and if the landlord does not construct the building within that time without sufficient cause, he should be put to terms.
36. The question to what extent the Authority can exercise its power to impose conditions for approval or renewal of the plan is a matter which cannot be investigated in these proceedings. The Controller has only to see that a valid plan has been produced by the landlord and such valid., plan has been issued by a proper Authority. It is not every plan which should be accepted by the Controller, because any sanction or approval granted by an Officer, Authority or Tribunal who has no jurisdiction to grant it will not be a valid grant and can be rejected by the Controller.
37. ' Mr. S. M. Sadiq the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Regulation seeks to .Impose obligation which is beyond the scope of the S. B. C. Ordinance and is not valid and binding.
38. The learned counsel relied on Haji Hashmatullah and others v. K. M. C. (1), where it was held that "it is settled position of law that if the rules deviate from the statute and confer excessive powers they are repugnant to the Statute and are void to the extent of repugnancy. Thus, it follows that the provisions of a Statute must prevail against anything contained in the Rules and, therefore; the rules cannot be allowed a determinative effect". The learned counsel also referred to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes III Edn. And Interpretation of Statutes by Crawford at page 30 to substantiate his
(1) PLD 1971 Kar. 514 contention that the Rules framed under the Ordinance cannot go beyond the Statute and any regulation which is against the policy of law cannot survive. It is well-settled that Rules and Regulations are creatures of the Statute and they have to be framed within the limits and conditions imposed by the parent Statute. Any Rule or Regulation which is repugnant K to the parent Statute will be void and illegal. Such question as discussed above cannot be agitated in appeal under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.
39. ' The learned counsel then contended that due to the grant of sanction and approval of plan the respondent has acquired a vested right to file ejectment case therefore, by executive Rules or Regulations that right cannot be taken away. The question, whether by virtue of the sanction and approval of plan the respondent has acquired a vested right to file ejectment case does not seem to be well founded. In this regard reference can be made to Qamar Din v. Mrs K. Taleh Begum (1), quoted above.
40. ' The learned counsel for the respondent then contended that the Regulation was framed in the year 1984 and cannot have retrospective operation. The plan had been approved on 10th of February, 1981 which was renewed on 9th February, 1982 for one year. Again on 9-2-1983 it was renewed for another year. However, it was suspended on 1-6-1983 but the same was withdrawn on 11-10-1983 and finally in April, 1984 the Regulation was framed. From these facts it is clear that on 9- 2.1984 the approval of plan had again lapsed and required further renewal. After granting approval of plan the Authority does not become ,functous officio. It retains its control by granting renewal every year and finally by granting complexion certificate. If for the purpose of renewal the Authority impose some new conditions which are within the ambit and framework of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, then the builder cannot make a grievance that while the approval of plan was granted earlier, such conditions had not been imposed. The Regulation no doubt is prospective in nature, but it will be applicable to cases, where before the construction has started the permission has lapsed by efflux of time. If the builder wants it to.Be revalidated the Authority can impose such new conditions which are permissible in law at the time of its renewal and are not in conflict with the earlier conditions.
41. ' Mr. Sadiq has referred to Salim Akbar v. Government of Sind (2), where Notification was issued under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 excluding certain buildings from the application of the said Ordinance, it was held that a legislation touching upon the substantive right of a person would not operate retrospectively "unless Legislature had either by express enactment or by necessary intendment given the legislation retroactive effect". The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is correct that the Regulation will have prospective effect and cannot be 44 applied retrospectively. In the present case there is no question of application of the Regulation with retrospective effect. From the facts narrated above it is clear that after the permission was restored on 11-10-1983, according to the appellant it was again suspended by a circular of K. D. A. Dated 3-12-1983 and renewal was withdrawn by the Authority's letter dated 15-12- 1983. This suspension and withdrawal of renewal were not legal as K. D. A. Has no authority to suspend the approval granted by the Authority. The Authority's letter, dated 15-12-1983 is not supported by any Rule,
(1) 1980 SCMR 608 (2) PLD 1984 Kar. 358 Regulation or provision of law. It seems to have been issued under the direction of K. D. A. Therefore, prima facie there was no legal suspension or withdrawal of permission from 3-12-1983 to 6-4-1984.
42. But in the meantime the approval of building plan expired on 8-2-1984. There was no further renewal and when the Regulation was enforced in April the renewal of plan was awaited. At this stage the Authority while granting renewal could have imposed conditions. Such imposition of condition will not amount to applying the Regulation with retrospective effect.
43. ' The learned Controller, while granting the ejectment application has held that the sanction granted to the respondent was not suspended, and it was only the approval of plan which had been suspended. Section 15(vi) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance requires the landlord to obtain "necessary sanction for reconstruction or erection". The sanction referred in this Ordinance has reference to the sanction granted under the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979. Section 6 of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979 provides that "no building shall be constructed before the Authority has in the prescribed manner approved the plan of such building and granted no objection certificate for the construction thereof". Section 6, therefore, contemplates that the plan should be approved and no objection certificate should be granted by the Authority before the construction is started. According to the proviso to subsection (1) of section 6 the approval of plan and no objection certificate should be obtained by such builders who have commenced construction before the enforcement of the Ordinance. Therefore, even for construction of such buildings for which approved plan and sanction had been obtained from K. D. A. Or K. M. C. Fresh approval of plan and no objection certificate had to be obtained from the Authority. Section 6-A provides a procedure for obtaining no objection certificate under section 6. The builder or developer is required to apply for no objection certificate and furnish particulars mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) which inter alia includes the plans, design, specification and materials used, as approved by the Authority. It is, therefore, clear that for obtaining no objection certificate under section 6, the builder must produce an approved plan. This approved plan has to be obtained first and on its basis no objection certificate is granted. Again section 7 prescribes conditions and procedure for preparation of a building plan which is to be submitted to the Authority for obtaining approval under section 6. Where any construction is made in violation of section 6(1) the Authority is empowered under section 7-A to eject the occupants and besides sealing can demolish it at the cost of the builder. The scheme of the Ordinance is that the approval of plan and no objection certificate for the construction thereof are two independent and separate requirements before embarking upon constructing a building. The approval of plan and no objection certificate though independent are complementary to each other. Unless the approval of plan has been obtained no objection certificate cannot be granted and likewise unless no objection certificate has been granted, even after grant of approval of pan, a builder cannot construct the building according to the approved plan Having determined the true intent and requirement of the provisions of Sind Building Control Ordinance it seems necessary to revert to Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.
44. Section 15(vi) requires a landlord to obtain sanction for reconstruction from the relevant authority.
45. The word 'sanction' has not been defined in the Ordinance. Its ordinary meaning is "permission, consent, to give validity". As sanction should he of a competent authority under any law, it has clear reference to the Authority under the Sind Building Control Ordinance, Therefore, in this section word 'sanction' has been used in a comprehensive manner to include all such permission, approval and consent which are necessary for constructing a building. Therefore, it would include the no objection certificate and approval of plan under section 6(1) of the Sind Building Control Ordinance.
46. ' The Regulation seeks to suspend all permissions accorded/granted by the Authority where agreement between landlord and tenant has not been submitted. It, therefore, suspends not only the approval of plan but the no-objection certificate also. As suspension does not amount to revocation& such cessation may be removed any time. 'Therefore, such suspension' cannot be pleaded as a bar to the grant of the ejectment application.
47. Under section 15(2) while directing the tenant to hand over possession the Court can grant such period as may be specified in the order. This period has to be determined considering the facts and circumstances of the case and has been left to the discretion of the Court. In these circumstances no one should be allowed to take advantage of the situation at the detriment of the.
48. Other. Section 15(3) and (4) of the Rent Ordinance provide protection to the tenants and the landlord is required to demolish the building within six months of the taking over of the possession of the premises in the facts of the case, in my view, it will be just and proper to impose condition on the ejectment of the appellant. In view of the observation in Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad (1), that "what is permissible for Courts of general jurisdiction in the field of fair play, justice and equity when there is no statutory bar, is also permissible for the Controller" conditions which are demand of justice may be imposed. In the present case as all permissions have been suspended the respondent even after taking over possession cannot demolish the building and start reconstruction either at the dispute place or other part of the building. Therefore, two months time is granted to the appellant to vacate the dispute premises. However, if the no objection certificate and approval of building plan is not revalidated or suspension is not withdrawn within this period of two months, the appellant shall not be ejected till such time the respondent obtains a valid building plan from the Authority. In any event after ejectment the appellant shall be entitled to the refits and protections provided to a tenant under section 15(3) and (4) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
49. ' Subject to these conditions the appeal is dismissed.
(1) 1983 SCMR 1064