1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---In the instant Appeal No,148-K of 1984 leave to appeal has been granted to consider whether the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, holding that respondent was a tenant of shop located in commercial building and in the proposed new building which was for residential purposes, the benefit of law available to him under section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was not available to him, petitioners were not entitled to evict him, was not in conflict with the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Abdul Hadi alias Abdul Hadi Hasan and 2 others v. Syed All Haider and others PLD 1983 SC 342; Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain PLD 1978 SC 78 and Zoab v. Akbar All 1983 SCM R 391.
2. In the other connected Appeals No,85-K of 1989; 86-K of 1989; 87-K of 1989; 88-K of 1989; 89-K of 1989; 90-K of 1989; K-50 of 1986; 166-K of 1990; 167-K of 1990; 168-K of 1990 and K-302 of 1990, fixed for today, inter alia, the same point is involved, therefore, leave to appeal has also been granted in the said appeals, and we propose to dispose of all the appeals through this single judgment.
3. ' Before dealing with the legal controversy it would be profitable to briefly state the facts of each case being disposed of through this judgment:-
(i) Civil Appeal No,148-K of 1984 ' On 24-5-1976 Asghar Ali and others appellants/landlords filed an ejectment application against Abdul Ghaffar Abdul Rehman respondents/tenants for their eviction from Shop No,6 of Antria Building, situated on Plot No,W.O.7/34, Wadhumal Odharam Quarters, opposite City Courts, Karachi on the ground of default in payment of rent and for reconstruction of the residential building. The respondents contested the suit and controverted the allegations of the appellants in toto and averred that the plea of reconstruction was not reasonable and in good faith. The plea of default was dropped and the learned Rent Controller, VII Court, Karachi ordered the eviction of the respondents on the ground of reconstruction alone. The respondents/tenants challenged the order before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh in Regular First Appeal which found favour with him and he, vide his order dated 8-12-1983, set aside the order of the Rent Controller impugned before him and dismissed the eviction petition of the appellants/landlords. Hence the instant Appeal No,148-K of 1984 by the landlords.
(ii) Civil Appeals No,85-K of 1989; 86-K of 1989; 87-K 1989: 88-K of 1989: 89-K of 1989 and 90-K of 1989.
4. ' Asghar Ali and others, respondents herein, filed three different eviction petitions against their shop tenants Bajwa Brothers, appellants in Civil Appeal No,85-K of 1989; Nuruddin Shamsuddin Brothers, appellants in Civil Appeal No,86-K of 1989; and V.M.Company, appellants in Civil Appeal No,87-K of 1989 on the ground of reconstruction of residential building thereon which were duly contested. The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 3-3-1984, ordered the eviction of the tenants aforementioned. The appeal filed against it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh vide order dated 3-8-1987 by maintaining the order of the Rent Controller but subject to the condition that the tenants shall vacate the premises within three months of the filing of the revalidated or fresh plans, duly sanctioned, by the landlord before the Rent Controller. Hence the instant appeals by the tenants. The landlord also felt aggrieved from the judgment of the High Court so far as the imposition of conditions are concerned and pray for the expungement thereof through Appeals No,88-K of 1989; 89-K of 1989 and 90-K of 1989.
(iii) Civil Appeal No,K-302 of 1990.
5. ' Asghar All and others instituted an application for the eviction of Quaid Johar and others from shop in their possession on the ground of demolition and reconstruction of residential building which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 18-9-1986 and the appeal filed against it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh vide order dated 6- 12-1989. Hence the instant appeal by the tenant/appellant on the ground, inter alia, that the learned Judge has completely ignored the well-established principle of law in that, if the object of reconstruction is to override the mandatory provision of subsection (5-B) of section 13 of the Ordinance, then the subsequent construction cannot be deemed to be bona fide, reasonable and in good faith.
(iv) Civil Appeal No,K-50 of 1986.
6. ' Azizullah respondent herein, filed an ejectment application in the Court of Rent Controller, Larkana against Abdul Rasool appellant herein, for his ejectment from Shop No,CS-761 on the ground of reconstruction and bona fide personal need. The learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 15- 41984 allowed the same and the appeal filed against it was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur vide order dated 20-9-1984.
(v) Civil Appeals No,166-K of 1990; 167-K of 1990 and 168-K of 1990.
7. ' Abdul Ghaffar appellant in Appeals No,166-K of 1990; 167-K of 1990 and 168-K of 1990 is the owner of a double-storeyed building bearing Survey No,368/1, Quaid-e-Azam Road, Jacobabad consisting of five shops on the ground floor, three of which are in occupation of respondents and the upper storey of the building is being used by the appellant as his residence. An application for the eviction of the shop tenants was filed on the ground of reconstruction after demolition having obtained necessary sanction from the competent authority. The prayer of the landlord was declined by the Rent Controller vide order dated 28-5-1988 mainly on the ground that the commercial portion of the building cannot be converted into residential. The appeal filed against it before the High Court was dismissed vide order dated 21-11-1988 with an observation that the purpose underlying subsections (3) and (4) in relation to clause (2)(vi) seems to be that in the case where the application for ejectment has been filed only on the ground of reconstruction, the plans must conform to the needs of the tenants as well, because they may claim re-induction into possession after reconstruction, unless the eviction has been sought not only on the ground of reconstruction but on the ground of personal use of the landlord or his children as well. Hence the appeals by the landlord.
8. ' As narrated above, the question requiring determination in the cases in hand is whether the plea of the landlords for the eviction of the tenants on the ground of requirement reasonably and in good faith for reconstruction is subject to the provisions of section 13(5-B) whereunder the tenant of the old building is entitled to apply to the Controller for an order directing that he be put in possession of such area in the new building as it does not exceed the area of old building of which he was in possession. In other words, whether the Rent Controller, before ordering the eviction of the tenant, is required to consider the aforementioned provisions in juxtaposition to determine whether in the proposed new building plan provision exists for putting the tenant in possession as provided for under section 13(5-B).
9. ' This very controversy came up for consideration before this Court earlier too, in the case of Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain (PLD 1978 SC 78), the facts of which are more or less identical to the facts of the case in hand, inasmush as there too, the old building was commercial and was being converted into residential building exclusively. It was agitated before their Lordships that the conversion of non-residential building into residential one would make the provision contained in section 13(5-B) as nugatory as in that case the tenant of a non-residential building could not, obviously, ask to be put into possession of the new building owing to the change in its character.
10. Their Lordshipsrepelled the contention in the following words:- "We regret we cannot subscribe to this line of reasoning, as we find that clause (vi) of subsection
(2) of section 13 of the Ordinance does not, by itself, impose any restriction or limitation as to the nature and purpose of the new building which is to be reconstructed in place of the old building. If this clause is to be read as being subject to the provisions of subsection (5-B) of the same section in the sense that the nature and character of the building cannot be changed by reconstruction, then the result would be to prevent future development of property even though its environment and the requirements of the community at large, may have changed. Such an interpretation would be altogether unreasonable and against the public interest, and should be avoided unless the words of the statute are so clear and unambiguous as to make it inevitable. This does not appear to be the case here.
11. We consider, therefore, that the ground of reconstruction mentioned in clause (vi) of subsection (2) of section 13 does not limit the same to reconstruction of a building of the same type and character and for the same purpose, namely, residential or nonresidential as the case may be.
12. However, the provisions of subsection (5-B) would come into play if the reconstructed building is of the same type and character and suitable for the same use as was the old building."
13. ' The point in issue was again considered in the case of Ghulam Nabi v. Mushtaq Ahmed PLD 1980 Supreme Court 206 wherein it was stressed that the addition of the words "reasonably" and "in good faith" through amending Ordinance 1965, the Rent Controller while considering these necessary ingredients of section 13(2)(vi) has to take into consideration the provision of subsection (5-B). Their Lordships did not subscribe to the proposition and observed as follows:- "This subsection only confers a right on a tenant to a lease of the demised premises after their reconstruction, and as the Controller is empowered to lease to the tenant in the new building a smaller area than the premises originally demised to him, this express provision is inconsistent with the proposition that a landlord can reconstruct his, property only in accordance with the needs of his tenant. Secondly, the option conferred on the tenant by this subsection continues until the completion of the new building and its occupation by another person. In view of the laws delays, this can only be many years after the landlord's reconstruction plan has been approved by the local Municipality, therefore, the plea that the landlord's rebuilding plan must conform to his tenant's requirements would lead to absurdity. Thirdly, whilst a landlord cannot evict his tenant except on the grounds prescribed in the said Ordinance, a tenant is free to vacate the demised premises after giving the contractual or statutory notice. As a tenant can terminate his lease unilaterally, it would be extremely unjust and unreasonable if the landlord's right to rebuild and develop his property was subject to the tenant's veto, and injustice is not to be lightly attributed to the Legislature."
14. ' The latest judgment of this Court dealing with legal question involved, is the case of Abdul Hadi alias Abdul Hadi Hasan and 2 others v. Syed All Haider and others (PLD 1983 SC 342) which is on all fours with the facts of the present case. It would be profitable to reproduce the relevant paragraphs for ready reference which are as under:- "We are unable to agree. Section 13(2)(vi) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance enables a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant if the, building occupied by him is required for reconstruction and the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for it from the local authority competent to sanction the reconstruction. It is true that under section 13(5-B), the tenant is entitled in case where the landlord has obtained the possession of a building on the ground of reconstruction to the possession of the area in the new building comparable to the one he was occupying in the old building and that he will be unable to exercise this option if the shops are converted into a residential building through reconstruction which makes no provisions for any shop. But this does not imply that because of this, the provisions of subsection (5-B) of section 13 are rendered nugatory. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that all parts of an enactment are to be read together and all parts thereof given due effect and that effect must be made to harmonise the seemingly inconsistent provisions.
15. ' We observe that clause (vi) of subsection (2) of section 13 of the Ordinance also does not impose any restrictions of limitations as to what type of a new building may be built on the site of the old building, after reconstruction. We also note that there is no law which prevents a non-residential building from being converted, after reconstruction, into a residential one. Consequently, if the contention raised by the petitioners was accepted and subsection (5-B) of section 13 was held to debar a landlord from making reconstruction, whereby shops could not be demolished and a residential building constructed' on the site, this would amount to imposing a limitation which does not exist in law.
16. The reading of both the provisions in harmony would yield the result that subsection (5-B) of section 13 comes into play only where the old building consisting of shops even after reconstruction retains the character of shops' and also in those cases where the old building is a residential building and new building on re-construction is again built as a residential building. This subsection would not apply in cases where a non-residential building is, after reconstruction, converted into a residential building."
17. ' Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the tenants submitted that the view expressed by this Court in the aforesaid three judgments has been deviated from in the judgments reported as Ghulam Haider v. Muhammad Hanif and others (1979 SCM R 396); Zoab and 5 others v. Akbar All (1983 SCM R 391); Mrs. Zehra Begum v. Messrs Pakistan Burmah-Shell Ltd. (PLD 1984 SC 38) and Mrs. Faiz Muhammad and 3 others v. Widow of Late Syed Abdul Sattar Shah and 7 others (1991 SCM R 1994).
18. We have minutely gone through all of them and found them either inapplicable at all or distinguishable. The cases of Mrs.Faiz Muhammad and .3 others v. Widow of Late Syed Abdul Sattar Shah and 7 others (1991 SCM R 1994) and Mrs. Zehra Begum v. Messrs Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd.
19. (PLD 1984 SC 38) do not deal' with section 13(5-B) at all and, therefore, they are of no help so far as the dilemma involved herein is concerned. The case of Zoab and 5 others v. Akbar All (1983 SCM R 391) is however distinguishable in the sense that the newly-constructed building therein included commercial shops and the evicted tenant applied under section 13(5-B), to be restored to the possession of shop on the roadside whereas the landlord had offered him a shop on the rearside.
20. To the same effect is the case of Ghulam Haider v. Muhammad Hanif and others (1979 SCM R 396) in which also the landlord was avoiding to install the tenant in the reconstructed building in the shop constructed on the roadside. In both these cases the conversion of commercial building into residential one exclusively was not involved.
21. Admittedly, the above-quoted judgments of this Court reported as Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain PLD 1978 SC 78, Ghulam Nabi v. Mushtaq Ahmed PLD 1980 SC 206 and Abdul Hadi alias Abdul Hadi Hasan and 2 others v. Syed Ali Haider and others PLD 1983 SC 342 provide answer to the legal propositions requiring determination in the instant appeals. Nevertheless, Mr. Farooqi the learned counsel for the tenants vehemently argued that no provision of a statute can be held redundant and that section 13(5-B) which provides safeguards to the dislodged tenants cannot be negated.
22. He submitted that the addition of "reasonable and good faith" in section 13(2)(vi), was with the purpose to deter the landlords from evicting their tenants at their whims. According to him the provision of section 13(5-B) is a check upon them and if the same is made ineffective, the landlords would be free to dislodge the established business of their shop tenants. He added that section 13(5-B) is a clog on the right of the landlord to evict his tenant on the ground of reconstruction without making provision in the proposed plan for putting the .Tenant in possession over an equal area. He stated that the provision being remedial in nature, liberal and purposeful interpretation is to be placed upon it in favour of the tenants as the rent Laws are primarily for their benefit and protection.
23. The conjoint reading of sections 13(2)(vi) and 13(5-B) makes it amply clear that the two provisions relate to different stages of the eviction proceedings. Section 13(2)(vi) comes into operation during the course of proceedings before the Rent Controller before the order of eviction is passed, and the learned Rent Controller has to satisfy himself that the landlord requires the premises reasonably and in good faith for reconstruction. On the, contrary, the provision of section 13(5-B) is attracted after the tenant is not only physically evicted from the area in his possession but the proposed new construction is also nearing completion. The stages of operation of the two provisions being different the latter provision cannot stand in the way of the earlier one and the Rent Controller has to form his opinion about the reasonableness and good faith of the landlord, independent of section 13(5-B) albeit on the proper appraisal of the other evidence produced before him.
24. Additionally, section 11 of the Rent Restriction Laws provides that no person shall convert residential building into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller but there is no corresponding provision therein to prohibit the conversion of non-residential building into residential one, the reason obviously being that the Legislature did not consider it proper and expedient to check the increase in residential buildings. Otherwise too, the rights of the landlords to improve their property in the manner they like for beneficial enjoyment if they possess the necessary means therefore cannot be disputed. In the absence of any legal hindrance in the way of landlords to convert commercial building into residential, the landlord cannot be debarred to carry out his plans simply because it will prove an obstacle in the way of tenants to exercise his option available to him under section 13(5-B). The apparent inconsistency between the two provisions of the statute has been amply taken care of by the Legislature itself by allocating separate operational field to each, 13(2)(vi) having operation uncontrolled by 13(5-B) and 13(5-B) operating at a stage when 13(2)(vi) has already taken effect.
25. In view of what has been discussed above, we have no reason to dissent from the dictum of the above-quoted cases of Abdul Bari Ghulam Nabi and Abdul Hadi, and hold that the provisions of section 13(2)(vi) are not subservient to or controlled by the provisions of section 13(5-B) and have to be considered independently by the Rent Controller while dealing with eviction petition under the Rent Laws, moreso, when the proposed reconstruction is from commercial building to residential one.
26. ' The other grounds urged in the appeals have been considered by us but since they relate to factual aspects of the case which have been duly considered by the lower forums we are not inclined to re-open them.
27. ' Resultantly, the appeals are disposed of as under:- Civil Appeal No,148-K of 1984.
28. ' The appeal is accepted, the order of the High Court is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored.. The tenant shall vacate the premises within three months of the filing of renewed plan by the landlord to the Rent Controller, notice whereof shall be given to the tenant.
29. Civil Appeals No,85-K. 86-K and 87-K of 1989.
30. ' The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
31. Civil Appeals No,88-1( 89-K and 90-K of 1989.
32. ' The appeals are accepted and the word "renewed" is substituted for the word "revalidated" in the concluding para of the judgments of the High Court.
33. Civil Appeal No,K-302 of 1990.
34. ' The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
35. Civil Appeal No,K-50 of 1986. .
36. ' The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
37. Civil Appeals No,166-K. 167-K and 168-K of 1990.
38. ' The appeals are accepted and the judgments of the High Court as well as the Rent Controller are set aside. The eviction petition filed by the , appellants against the tenants/respondents is accepted and the tenants/respondents are directed to vacate the premises within three months of the filing of the renewed sanctioned plan by the landlord to the Rent Controller, notice of which shall be served upon the tenants/respondents.