1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 21-6-1987, dismissing his writ petition in a matter under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly that Muhammad Iqbal (respondent No.3), the owner of Property No. A/99 situated at Jinnah Road, Rawalpindi had given the said building on rent to the petitioner. The respondent-landlord filed an application for the tenant's ejectment, inter alia, on the ground that he wanted to demolish the property in question and reconstruct a new building on the site. He also took up the grounds of default in payment of rent, nuisance and personal use.
2. Issues were accordingly framed with regard to each of the aforementioned averments.
3. Learned Rent Controller decided the issue of 'reconstruction' in favour of the respondent-landlord and ordered eviction of the petitioner. On appeal the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, upheld the order of the learned trial Court with regard to Issue No. 1 in respect of demolition and reconstruction of the building and also reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on Issue No.2 with regard to default in payment of rent on the part of the tenant. The petitioner tenant thereupon filed a writ petition before the High Court which upheld the order of the learned Additional District Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
4. Feeling aggrieved Abdul Aziz petitioner has filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that clause (vi) of section 13(2.) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance requires the landlord to show that the building of the rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a building on the site'.
5. PLD 1987 SC 20, which reads as follows:-
(a) ---------------- landlord seeking ejectment of his tenant on ground of reconstruction has to plead and prove all requirements of cl. (vi) of S.13(2) as existing prior to promulgation of Amending Ordinance of 1978, viz., 'reasonably and in good faith'.
6. A reading of the judgment would, however, show that case was decided on a different point all together, namely that although by Amending Ordinance - I of 1978 the words 'reasonably and in good faith' were omitted from clause (vi) of section 13(2) of the Ordinance yet subsequently, by another Ordinance, namely Ordinance (IX of 1979), the relevant law was amended again, with the result that Ordinance No.1 of 1978 never took effect and the legal position continues to remain the same as before, namely that the requirement by the landlord for reconstruction of the building should be reasonable and bona fide. But the counsel has overlooked that in the present case finding with regard to bona fide and reasonableness had actually been given by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge. The High Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petition.
7. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner also overlooked that it has been repeatedly held by this Court in cases under clause (iv) of S.13(2) that if the owner of a building seeks eviction of the tenant on the ground of reconstruction, the only condition that he is required to fulfil is to produce a copy duly sanctioned plan of the proposed building and that in view of the provisions of subsection (5) of S.13 it shall be presumed that the landlord requires the building for reconstruction (or material alteration) both reasonably and bona fide.
8. The first case in this connection was Messrs Amir Din, Allah Ditta and others v. Seth Adamji Abdullah and others 1969 SCMR 131, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:- "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.
9. The Penal provision contained in subsection (5) of the section 13 of the Ordinance afford an adequate safeguard against a landlord acting in bad faith."
10. The above-noted judgment was relied upon by this Court again in Messrs Maulvi A.I Muhammad - Nazar Muhammad Butt v. Barkat A.I 1983 SCMR 947.
11. It was again held by this Court in Haji Allah Ditta v. Mst. Shahzadi Bilqis and another 1980 SCMR 41 that:- ---------- The mere fact that the landlord is willing to demolish the old building and invest a large amount of money in constructing a new one, notwithstanding the tremendous increase in the cost of construction, and the fact that he is willing to undergo imprisonment on his failure to demolish the building or to construct it within a specified period is sufficient to establish his bona fides.
12. The same view was again reiterated in Abdul Aziz and 7 others v. Kh. Hassan Joo and 5 others 1981 SCMR 924 where in a similar case it was observed as follows:- "------The respondents/ landlords have produced an approved site plan in support of their plea of the construction, which fulfils the requirements of law. The mere fact that the site plan for the construction had been got sanctioned from the Municipal Committee six years prior to the filing of the ejectment application, does not detract from the bona fides of the landlord's intention to reconstruct the premises. It is not essential for the landlord to show as to why he considers the construction as necessary subsection (5) of the said section also provides sufficient guarantee that the landlord shall construct the building after it is got vacated through, the Court, because he would know fully well that in case of failure to do so, he would not only have to put back the tenant in possession, but shall also be liable to undergo a sentence of imprisonment. As such the mere fact that the landlord has made an ejectment application with full knowledge of the liability imposed by the aforementioned provisions of law is sufficient to demonstrate the bona fide of his intention to reconstruct the premises in question after getting it vacated."
13. 'In Ghulam Nabi v. Mushtaq Ahmed PLD 1980 SC 206 while considering the meaning of the words 'reasonable and bona fide' as occurring in S.13(2)(vi) it was observed at page 209 of the reported judgment that:- "If ----- the effect of the reconstruction is substantially to develop and improve a property, the landlord's requirement is bona fide and reasonable ...."
14. This observation was relied by this Court in Abdul Hadi alias Abdul Hadi Hassan and 2 others v .
15. Sayed A.I Haider and others. PLD 1983 SC 342, and it was held that:- "----In the instant case as the reconstruction in the building sought. To be made by the landlord is to substantially develop and improve the property, the landlord's requirement must be held to be bona fide and reasonable."
16. It may be observed once again that as far reasonableness of the decision to reconstruct the building in question is concerned it is the owner of the building who is in the best position to determine whether, despite the fact that the building is relatively recent or the structure thereof is quite firm, he would like to renovate or reconstruct it so as to make it commercially more beneficial for him. Moreover, as has been observed in the aforementioned judgments, the very fact that he is willing to spend huge amount of money on the reconstruction and to subject himself to the risk of penal action contained in section 13(5) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, it must be assumed that he is acting bona fide.