' This order is to dispose of S.A.O. No.13 of 1984, S.A.O. No.14 of 1984, S.A.O. No.15 of 1984, S.A.O. No.16 of 1984, S.A.O. No.17 of 1984, S.A.O. No.18 of '1984, S.A.O. No.19 of 1984, S.A.O. No.20 of 1984, S.A.O. No.21 of 1984, S.A.O. No.22 of 1984, S.A.O. No.23 of 1984, S.A.O. No./4 of 1984, S.A.O. No.25 of 1984, as the question for consideration is common to all the appeals.
2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that Gul Zir Khan (now deceased and represented by his legal representatives) and one Haji Mirza Khan, who are respondents in these appeals, applied under section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for the eviction of their tenants, who are the appellants herein, from the shops in dispute situated in Namakmandi, Peshawar. City. The eviction of the tenants was sought by the landlords solely on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement for reconstruction of the property. The ejectment applications were resisted by the tenants (appellants) primarily on the ground that the applications were mala fide and in fact the landlords wanted to enhance the rent. Before the Rent Controller Gul Zir Khan (respondent No.1) appeared .as his own witness and also examined one Rehmanuddin, Record Keeper, Municipal Corporation, Peshawar P.W.2 to prove the requisite sanction and the site-plan of the proposed construction. The respective tenants besides examining themselves. as witnesses also produced Abdullah Shah and Sultan Shah (R.W.2 and R.W.3) in all the cases and their evidence is of identical nature. The tenants or their witnesses nowhere stated in their evidence that the eviction sought was mala fide because the landlords in fact intended to enhance the rent.. However, it was stated that the landlords in fact wanted to sell the property after obtaining the eviction order. The tenants, however, admitted that the landlords (Gul Zir Khan ) respondent No.1 had informed them that after reconstruction the property shall again be given to them on rent. Sultan Shah (R.W.3) stated that about 4 or 44 years ago some unknown person had accompanied the landlord to the premises in dispute who wanted to purchase the property if the tenants were evicted.
3. In view of the evidence produced in the case the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlords for reconstruction has been established. The ejectment order prayed for was accordingly passed in all the cases against the tenants on 21-2-1983 and they were directed to put the landlords in possession of the property within four months of the order. The appeals filed by the tenants were also dismissed by the learned District Judge on 22-12-1983. The learned District Judge found that in the written statements of the tenants the mala fides of the landlords were referred to the enchancement of he rent whereas in the evidence this plea was totally abandoned and substituted by the plea that the landlords in fact wanted to sell the property. In the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary it was held that from the evidence produced by the landlords and from the approved site-plan and the requisite sanction for reconstruction it was evident that about 30/40 years old structure in the form of a single storey was to be replaced by a multi-storeyed big market. The aforesaid 'development and improvement of the property was held to indicate the bona fide requirement of the landlords. However, while dismissing the appeals the tenants were allowed a further period of four months to vacate the premises. ,
4. In support of the appeals the learned counsel argued that the landlords have failed to prove their bona fide and reasonable requirement for reconstruction and, therefore, the eviction orders were not justified in law. It is also urged that since Gul Zir Khan one of the landlords had been murdered it was no longer possible to carry out the proposed reconstruction. The argument is without any force. The mere death of one of the landlords would not lead to inference that the proposed reconstruction would not be carried out in terms of the eviction orders. Gul Zir Khan deceased was succeeded by his two sons, a daughter and a widow who had been duly made parties to this litigation. Apparently there is no reason to assume that Haji Mirza Khan respondent and the legal heirs of Gul Zir Khan deceased would not reconstruct the property as prayed for in the ejectment applications. It may be mentioned that under the provisions of section 13(5) of the Ordinance, if a landlord, who obtains an eviction order for reconstruction, does not demolish the old building or does not construct the new building within the prescribed period renders himself liable to punishment: So far as the question of the bona fide and reasonable requirement of the landlords for recon struction is concerned it may be mentioned that from the evidence produced by the landlords it has been rightly concluded by the learned A District Judge that the disputed old construction which is in the form of a single storey was to be replaced by a multi-storeyed building which showed the desire of the landlords to improve and substantially levelop their property. There is nothing in law to prevent the landlords from doing so. In Ghulam Nabi v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1980 SC 206 it was observed:- "Now, in such a situation, even if a landlord tries to defeat the tenant's rights under subsection (5-B) the strong arm of the law is strong enough to prevent him from defeating his tenant rights but this would not by itself convert a bona fide claim into a mala fide claim, the moreso, as the interests of the tenants are protected by subsection (5-B), whilst the development of property is in the national interest and is in no way inconsistent with the objects of the rent laws."
' In view of this observation of the Honourable Supreme Court and the provisions of subsection (5- B) of section 13 of the Ordinance the apprehension of the learned counsel that the appellants shall not be given possession of the property after reconstruction is misplaced. Similarly, there is no force in the argument that the evidence in all the cases was simultaneously recorded by the Rent Controller. It is not disputed that in all the cases identical pleas were taken and identical evidence was led by both the parties and no objection was taken to the mode of recording the evidence at the proper time. Thus, an inference can be drawn that the evidence was recorded in this manner with the consent of both the parties. Even otherwise, the learned counsel was unable to show that any prejudice was caused to the appellants or the decision of the cases had been adversely affected on merits. There is sufficient evidence on the record to justify the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller and the learned Lower Appellate Court. No case has been made out for interference in second appeal. All the appeals are, therefore, dismissed in limine, and the stay. orders issued therein stand vacated.