S. A. NJSRAT, J.--This order will dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal as the same arises out of a common judgment of the High Court, involve similar facts and law points and the respondent /landlady is the same.
2. The respondent /landlady applied for ejectment of the petitioners from the disputed premises on the ground that the same were required by her reasonably and in good faith for reconstruction /erection of a new building at the site. The application was supported by building plan approved by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. The application was opposed by the petitioners, inter alia, on the allegations of mala fides and harassment. On the pleadings of the parties the only issue framed in the case was whether the disputed premises were required by the respondent in good faith for reconstruction and whether she had obtained necessary permission in this regard. The issue was decided by the learned Rent Controller in the affirmative on the basis of the evidence brought on the record and an order of ejectment, on identical terms, was passed on 11-3-1982. The petitioners having appealed unsuccessfully against the said order in the High Court have now come up to this Court seeking leave to appeal.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as was done before the High Court, that the disputed premises were situate in the compulsory open space of 22 feet and the approved plan did not cover the same. The construction of the proposed building, therefore, could be carried out without the removal of the premises of the petitioners. The argument, though somewhat novel, has no force. The approval of the building plan covers the entire area of the plot and certain spaces are compulsory required to be left open as required by building rules and bye-laws.
Allowance of compulsory open spaces as per approved plan, therefore, is part of the overall layout of the proposed construction to be erected at the site and the same are integral part of the sanction and no construction can be raised without compliance of such requirement. The findings of the learned High Court is in accord with the above reasoning and is unexceptionable.
The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly.