This is an appeal against the order dated 7-12-1988, passed by Mr. Saeedullah Chaudhri, Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantonment (hereinafter to be called as Controller) whereby he ordered the ejectment of the tenant--appellant (hereinafter to be called as tenant) from the shop No.454 Jinnah Street, Peshawar Cantt.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst.Razia Begum and others, the heirs of Abdul Hakim, were owners of the suit shop and some other property. Mst. Razia Begum, one of the co-owners, executed rent deed (copy Exh.P.W.2/4) with Messrs Servis Sales Corporation Lahore Limited, manufacturers of Servise Shoes, whereby the suit shop was allowed to remain in possession of the tenant for an extended period of three years w.e.f. 1-10-1982 to 30-9-1985 at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month. It was also stipulated in the said deed that the lease period would be renewable for further three years i.e. From 1-10-1985 to 30-9-1988 with the consent of the landlord, on the expiry of the original period. Mst: Razia Begum filed the instant application against the tenant for their eviction from the suit shop No.454 on the grounds of default in the payment of rent as well as the reconstruction, after demolition of the present structure, for which she had already obtained the requisite sanction from the Cantonment Board, Peshawar (Exh.P.W.2/7) and had got the proposed plan (Exh.P.W.2/8) of reconstruction, sanctioned by the Cantonment Board. The tenant contested the application and in view of the allegations and counter allegations of the parties, nine issues were framed by the learned Controller. During the course of the examination of Jawaid Akhtar, son and attorney of Mst. Razia Begum, it came to light that Mst. Razia Begum and the other co-owners had gifted their share in the suit shop in favour of Jawaid Akhtar vide registered gift decd dated 23-7-1986, copy Exh.P.W.2/1. An application was accordingly submitted by Jawaid Akhtar before the learned Controller, wherein he prayed for the substitution of his name as petitioner landlord instead of Mst. Razia Begum, on account of the change of ownership. This application, though contested, found favour with the learned Controller who, vide his order dated 9-3-1988, accepted the same and substituted Jawaid Akhtar son of Abdul Hakim in place of Mst. Razia Begum as petitioner- landlord (hereinafter to be called as landlord). This substitution having not been challenged attained finality. Thereafter evidence of the parties, pro and contra, the issues framed, was recorded. However, Jawaid Akhtar gave a statement, on 3-10-1988, to the learned Controller, wherein he abandoned the plea of default in the payment of rent and consequently issue No.8 framed thereon became redundant. His plea of reconstruction was accepted by the learned Controller and he, vide his order dated 7-12-1988, by accepting the application of the landlord, ordered the eviction of the tenant from the suit shop, with a direction to hand over vacant possession of the suit shop to the landlord within sixty days from the order. Hence the instant appeal.
3.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case with their assistance.
4. Learned counsel for the tenant attacked the impugned order on several grounds firstly, that the original application having been submitted by Mst. Razia Begum and the requisite sanction having been obtained by her, the subsequent transferee from her, namely Jawaid Akhtar could not legally derive any benefit from the proceedings initiated by her, particularly when the same was based on the ground of reconstruction; secondly, that before the expiry of the extended period the tenant was not liable to eviction and that consequently the application filed by Mst. Razia Begum was premature; thirdly, that the shop in question was not in a dilapidated condition necessitating demolition and reconstruction thereby attributing mala fides to the landlord; and lastly that after the order of substitution of the name of Jawaid Akhtar as petitioner-landlord neither the application for eviction was amended nor fresh sanction from the Cantonment Board for the demolition and reconstruction was obtained by the landlord with the result that no order of eviction of the tenant from the suit shop in favour of Jawaid Akhtar, the substituted landlord could legally be passed. Learned counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, controverted these submissions and argued that definition of landlord as given in the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 includes the successors-in-interest of the landlord as well, and thus Jawaid Akhtar landlord was rightly substituted for Mst. Razia Begum by the learned Controller. About the subsistence of the period of tenancy, it was urged by him that the landlord never consented to the extension of period of lease from 1-10--1985 to 30-9-1988 and that there was no evidence whatsoever on the record to suggest that any such consent was ever given by the landlord. Regarding the bona fides of the landlord he referred to section 17 subsection (2) clause (vi) of the Act (ibid) wherein, the landlord can ask for the eviction of the tenant if he intends to demolish the building for constructing a new building on the same site and has already obtained the necessary sanction for such construction from the Cantonment Board. Lastly he contended that Jawaid Akhtar landlord was already a co- owner in the suit shop prior to the gift in his favour by the other co-owners and the sanction and the approved site plan was granted in favour of all the owners landlords and no fresh sanction was legally required.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
The provisions of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 are materially different from those contained in the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, so far as the ground of demolition and reconstruction is concerned. Under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act ibid the condition precedent for the eviction of the tenant is the intention of the landlord to demolish the existing building and the construction of a new building on the same site for which the obtaining of the necessary sanction from the Cantonment I Board is a must. However, under the provisions of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 the landlord must require the premises reasonably and in good faith for the purpose of reconstruction. Learned counsel for the tenant-appellant relying on the authorities delivered under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 emphasised that the landlord has failed to bring on record sufficient material in support of his bona fides. I am afraid the said authorities are not applicable in the instant case. A similar point came up for consideration before this Court in F.A.No.57 of 1986 decided on 6-8-1988 in case `Khalid Mahmood and others v. Messrs Daud Sons and others' reported as PLD 1988 Peshawar 153 wherein it was observed that for the eviction of tenant on the ground of reconstruction it is not essential that the building may be in dilapidated condition but the intention to demolish and reconstruct the same by the landlord would, per se, be sufficient for the eviction of the tenant.
Provisions of section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 have been amended by the Punjab Government whereby the words `reasonably and in good faith' have been omitted. The amended provisions came up for consideration before the august Supreme Court in case Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Maqsood Hussain and 3 others reported as 1984 SCM R 1142 wherein their Lordship observed that the landlord having obtained necessary sanction for erection of a new building was under no further obligation to prove that the premises were reasonably and in good faith required for the said purpose and was under the law, entitled to evict the tenant. The landlord has, in his statement on oath before the learned Controller, showed his willingness to furnish any sort of security to the effect that he would demolish the existing building and would 1 construct a new one thereon. Under subsection (7) of section 17 of the Act ibid, if the landlord after evicting the tenant does not demolish the building within four months or fails to construct a new building within a further period of two years: would make himself punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. In the instant petition, intention of the landlord to demolish the existing building and erect a new one on the same site cannot be doubted.
6. It is now well-established that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code do not apply to the proceedings before the Rent Controllers, stricto senso. There was nothing wrong in the substitution of the name of Jawaid Akhtar for Mst. Razia Begum as petitioner-landlord in view of the gift of the suit shop by the other co-owners in favour of Jawaid Akhtar during the pendency of the application. The sanction for demolition and reconstruction of the very premises had already been obtained by the original landlord Mst. Razia Begum and the transferee from her, was legally not required to obtain fresh sanction. Nevertheless the Cantonment Board has already renewed the sanction in favour of Jawaid Akhtar landlord vide letter issued by the Cantonment Board Executive Officer in the name of Jawaid Akhtar and others, copy Exh.P.W.2/9. He gave a statement on oath on 27-6-1988 wherein he showed his intention to demolish the suit shop and re-erect a new building on its site. His failure to make consequential amendment in the application for eviction after the order of his substitution as landlord cannot affect the ,proceeding. Before the learned Controller and this technical objection is repelled.
7. The original period of lease had admittedly expired on 30-9-1985 prior to the institution of the instant eviction application. There is no evidence worth the name, oral or documentary, on the file to show that the landlord had consented to the extension of time in view of the terms and conditions of rent deed, copy Exh.P.W.2/4. Moreover, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that such consent was given, even then it does not stand in the way of the landlord to evict the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction under section 17 (2)(vi) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. It could only be availed of if the ground of eviction had been the requirement by the landlord, in good faith, for his own occupation or for the occupation of any member of his family under the proviso to subsection (4) of section 17 of the Act ibid.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, the tenant-appellant is allowed two months time to vacate the suit shop and hand over vacant possession to the landlord-respondent herein, failing which he (tenant) shall be evicted through the process of law.