' MUHAMMAD AZAM MON, J.--This is a Constitutional petition filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 read with Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 wherein the petitioner, Haji Aurangzeb is seeking to call in question the order of Additional District Judge (III) Peshawar dated 16-5-1985 by which accepting the respondent's appeal he directed his eviction from Shop No,Ar- 1170, situate in Qissa Khawani Bazar, Peshawar City.
2. The facts that gave rise to this petition are that the petitioner is tenanting a shop on payment of rent. He was sued in the Court of Rent Controller for eviction from the shop on the ground that it was required for reconstruction. He denied that there was such an intention on the part of the respondent. He contended that in fact the respondent wanted to enhance rent and to realise pagri.
The Rent Controller framed issues and on the evidence adduced before him found that the shop did not require reconstruction and accordingly rejected the eviction petition. The respondent preferred an appeal to question the order of ,rejection of his petition which the learned Additional District Judge, vide his order dated 26-5-1985 accepted and setting aside the order of the Rent Controller -directed vacant possession of the shop to be handed over to the respondent in order to enable him to carry out reconstruction. Hence this petition.
3. It is apparent that in allowing the appeal the learned Additional District Judge was influenced by the fact that the landlord was required in law only to get sanction from the relevant authority for reconstruction. Once that was done, his view was, that was the end of the matter so far as the question of eviction for the purpose of reconstruction was concerned, because no other condition would require to be established. This view, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends is- patently incorrect, for the amending Ordinance No,XXI of 1965 has changed the provision regarding reconstruction, introducing therein the words "reasonably and in good faith". Now, therefore, he further contends, a landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from any premises on the plea of reconstruction will not only have to establish requirement of the premises for reconstruction but also that the requirement is reasonable and there is good faith to carry out reconstruction. This the record does not prove. Rather it shows to the contrary, because as far back as the year 1972 the landlord got evicted the adjoining tenant on the same ground but instead of making reconstruction he put his son in the premises who commenced his business and continues to remain on the premises till date. Had he reasonably and in good faith required the premises for reconstruction he would not have waited for 16 long years to undertake reconstruction. This is just a ruse being employed to secure eviction of the petitioner, he added. A fruther fact, he pointed out, betraying a different intention of the respondent is also noticeable in his evidence. It is that when questioned if he would offer the shop after reconstruction to the petitioner, he replied that it would not be possible. Accordingly, looked at from any angle it would appear a case of ,no genuine need for reconstruction, he emphasized and placed reliance on PLD 1980 Lah. 577, PLD 1980 Supreme Court 206, PLD 1975 SC 1 and 1973 SCMR 391.
4. It is correct that the respondent had said in evidence that the shop after reconstruction would not be offered to the petitioner for re-occupation, but that cannot take away the right of the petitioner to occupy the new premises, the relevant law providing the requisite protection. So, it will not depend on the will of the respondent as to what he would like to do with the premises after reconstruction. He will have to put the petitioner in possession of an area out of the reconstructed premises that may be equal to his previous area, or even less than that if adequate to serve his purpose. This is the requirement of law, as laid down in section 13(5-B) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and no escape from the same will be possible for the respondent to have.
Accordingly, though the respondent has not been able to take in hand reconstruction of the adjoining shop of which vacant possession was handed over to him in, pursuance of an order of the Rent Controller to that effect, we are of the view that he can be allowed to evict the petitioner to build afresh on the existing premises. However, after completion of the' fresh construction the petitioner will be entitled to be put in possession of an area equal to what he is presently holding or even less than that if it be suitable to meet his requirements.
5. As such we allow the writ petition, and amend the order of eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises to the extent that after reconstruction the petitioner-tenant will be offered for re-occupation the new premises on payment of reasonable rent. The quantum of the area to be given to the petitioner will be determined by the Rent Controller. No order as to costs.