1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This petition arises out of an application filed by respondent-landlord for petitioners' eviction from the demised premises on the grounds, inter alia, that they require the premises for construction of a new building on the same site for which he had already obtained the necessary approval and sanction of the Quetta Municipality. Petitioners contested the proceedings on several, grounds, including that what was rented to them is neither a residential building nor a rented land, hence the ejectment application was not competent under section 13 of Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. This, in fact, is the only pica raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the request for grant of leave to appeal from the judgment of High Court by which order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application was set aside and petitioners' eviction was ordered from the demised premises.
2. In this connection, reference may firstly be made to the description of the premises stated by the respondent in the ejectment application which is contained in its first paragraph as under: "That the applicant is owner/landlord of property bearing Municipal No.4-35/21-A situated at Gurdit Singh Road, Quetta, whereas the Respondent No.1 obtained the same as a tenant of the applicant on rental of rupees one thousand per month"
3. In reply petitioners stated that in the written statement as under:-- "That the contents of para. 1 as stated are not correct. The fact is that the subject-matter of the eviction application was a vacant' plot which was obtained on rent by the respondent No.1 for Foundry Workshop for which purpose, with the permission of the applicant, the respondent No.1 made certain constructions (Sheds, stores, rooms alongwith boundary walls) over the plot. In 1975 when this plot was let out the rent was Rs:150 per month which has been subsequently enhanded by the applicant from time to time upto Rs.100 per month. Before filing the eviction application the applicant again asked the respondent No.1 to enhance, the rent upto Rs.2,000 which rate being very exhorbitant the respondent.No.1 did not agree and as a retaliation the applicant has filed the present application. The nature of the premises in dispute is such to which the provisions of Ordinance VI of 1959 do not apply. In view of these circumstances the contents of para. 1 are denied."
4. On the basis of evidence produced by the parties, learned Rent Controller took the view that there was confusion in the evidence produced by the respondent as to the nature of the property rented to the petitioners and on the other hand, the evidence produced by the petitioners is very much clear on the point that an open plot was rented out, the construction thereon was made later.
5. On appeal at the instance of the respondent, learned Judge in the High Curt: confirmed the view that prevailed with the learned Rent Controller that what was rented out to the petitioners was an open plot over which they on their own, had constructed a Foundry Workshop with the permission of the landlord. This is indeed petitioners' own position taken in defence of the case. Learned Judge however took the view that from the language of section 13(2)(iv) it is clear that the landlord is entitled to obtain possession of rented land if it is reasonably and in good faith required by him for erection of a building. In this regard, this is what learned Judge in the High Court observed: "According to tenants they were leased out an open plot for commercial purposes where they constructed a Foundry Workshop etc. In such circumstances the question that section 5-B will come into play and impose a limitation on the rights of landlord to hand over possession to tenants after constructing a building is not tenable. In cases where the question of erection of a building arises on a rented land, section 5-B provides no protection to the tenants because the word rented land appears to have been intentionally omitted by the legislature. It protects the rights of only those tenants who are already occupying a building rented out to them by landlords.
6. It is only then that the landlord is under a statutory obligation to accommodate tenant in the new building. The conclusions thus would be that under section 13(2)(iv) a landlord has got the right to erect a building on a rented land provided it is required bona fide and in good faith. But the landlord cannot be refused possession solely on the ground that he must handover possession to the tenant of the rented land after erection of a building as is the case where the landlord requires an old building to be reconstructed in which case he is bound under law to give possession to tenants, in the new building as contemplated in section 13(5-B) " Another question raised before the learned Judge in the High Court was that since the disputed area was leased out for commercial purposes, therefore, the landlord is debarred from obtaining possession for construction of a residential building. In this regard, learned Judge firstly noted the admitted position that the landlord wished to construct 11 shops and also a residential accommodation for personal use on the first floor on the proposed building. In his view even if he would have constructed residence alone there was no bar under the law as held by this Court in the case of Abdul Hadi alias Abdul Hadi Hasan and 2 others v. Syed Ali Haider and others PLD 1983 SC 342. It was on this view of the case that learned Judge in the High Court set aside the order of Rent Controller rejecting respondent's application and directed petitioners' eviction from the demised premises however allowing them 4 months' time to handover vacant possession thereof to the landlord.
7. Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad, learned Advocate-on-Record appearing in support of the petition for leave to appeal submitted that since in his own statement, respondent had described the rented premises as a house, petitioners-are entitled to obtain possession of accommodation after the new building is erected by virtue of provisions of section 13(5)(d) of the Ordinance. Learned counsel further submitted that since the demised premises were meant for commercial use, the landlord is not entitled to obtain petitioners' eviction on the ground that he requires the demised premises for construction of a residential building.
8. We find that the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Judge in the High Court have given a concurrent finding of fact that what was rented out to the petitioners was a piece of an open land for the purposes of running a Foundry which obviously was meant for a commercial purpose.
9. In fact, it was the case of petitioners themselves that an open area was rented out to them by the respondent over which they raised certain construction with his permission. Admittedly, thereupon the demised premises obviously falls under definition of "rented land" as defined under section 2(F) of the Ordinance. The provision of section 13(2)(3)(iv) provided that landlord is entitled to seek eviction of tenant if the building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by him for reconstruction or erection of a building on the site and he has obtained the necessary sanction for the said reconstruction or erection from the relevant authorities. The fact that landlord had obtained the necessary sanction admits of no doubt in this case, and if it was proved to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller that he reasonably and in good faith required the rented land for construction of a residential house he was entitled to seek tenant's eviction. There is a finding of fact in this behalf by the Courts below and in the circumstances there is no valid justification for this Court to interfere.
10. The petition is therefore dismissed.