1. ' This is a tenant's first appeal against an order of Rent Controller, Cantt. Dated 24-3-1991 directing his ejectment on the sole ground that shop in his possession was reasonably, and, in good faith required by the owner for its reconstruction in accordance with sanctioned building plan Ext.P.2.
2. Rent Controller gave forty five days to the appellant for vacating the shop.
3. ' In support of the appeal, Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari., Advocate, has taken two points: First that sanctioned plan did Not envisage reconstruction on the same site of the shop in possession of the tenant-appellant, and, therefore, ejectment could Not take place on that ground, and second that the tenancy was for a specified period enuring till the month of March 1991, hence ejectment petition instituted on 9-2-1989 was premature and Not maintainable on the date of its filing. Both the points were found against the appellant and had little merits in them and were merely Noted for being turned down outright.
4. ' Property No,65/5 Kashmir Road, Saddar Rawalpindi Cantt. Of which a portion is marked red in the plan attached to the ejectment petition was previously owned by Sheikh Abdul Majid. On 9-3-1971, by a deed in writing, it was let out to the appellant for a term of ten years at the monthly rental of Rs,700. Lease was extendible for a further period by mutual agreement between the parties. Rent fi -d at the inception of tenancy was enhanced in course of time to its present rate of Rs,3,500 per month.
5. ' By deeds of sales registered on 30-3-1988 and 18-41988 marked Exts. P.3, P.4, previous owner sold property No,65/5 to respondent Sheikh Ainul Hague and intimated the sale of the property to the tenant-appellant. New owner applied to Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi, for allowing sanction to rebuild the property anew after complete demolition of the existing construction and submitted a plan to them of the proposed new construction. Cana. Board by a resolution approved the building plan Ext.P.2 on 31-1-1989.
6. ' On 9-2-1989, respondent-owner applied to Rent Controller Cantt. Rawalpindi seeking ejectment of the appellant from the portion in its occupation on the sole ground that the entire property No,65/5 of which the remaining portion was already in his possession where he had established an "Eating House" was required to be demolished for the construction of a new building on the same site in accordance with building plan sanctioned by the Board. The appellant denied the averments as regards reconstruction of the property, and, its bona fide need and further that the tenancy ran for a specified period till March 1991, and, consequently ejectment plea on the ground taken was Not available till then.
7. ' On 18-4-1989, Rent Controller settled following issues for determination of the ejectment case:-
(1) Whether the petitioner intends to demolish the building in possession of the respondent for purposes of reconstruction? OPP
(2) Relief.
8. ' In support of the above issues, respondent examined himself as a party-witness as P.W.1 and deposed that he intended to demolish and reconstruct his property in accordance with the sanctioned plan and that the tenancy was Not for a specified period enuring till March 1991. It was further stated that there was No such agreement either with the previous owner or with him. Sale- deeds of property and building plan sanctioned by the Board were placed on file and marked Exts.P.1 to P.4. Appellant gave evidence of its three officers and two experts to prove that building in question was in sound condition; it was neither old Nor rickety Nor dilapidated and thus was Not needed for reconstruction. Rent Controller upon analysis of the above material placed before him held that need for reconstruction of the shop was established, and consequently ordered ejectment of the appellant on that score, vide his impugned order.
9. ' There is No dispute about the tenancy or its monthly rental. What is really disputed is the bona fide requirement for reconstruction of the shop. It is common ground that property No,65/5 was a Non- Muslim evacuee owned preperty. Though the record did Not much assist on date and time of its first construction but the factor that it was owned by a Non-Muslim evacuee gave some indication of its old age. Respondent gave evidence that building was old and in bad shape and he intended to dismantle it for raising a new building on its existing site and for that purpose, he had already got a plan sanctioned from the Cantt. Board. Appellant tried to rebut this evidence and asserted that the building looked fine. Obviously for them, it appeared so, because it housed their business, but their word on it was Not final. Owner has every right to improve his property to augment its value and utility, to him. All around, old buildings are giving way to new ones. Rent Laws are Not intended to arrest improvement of properties and the right of the owner to better it as he wished it.
10. Embargo was with regard to a sanctioned plan. That requirement had already been met by the respondent. Mr. Ansari made much capital of the space left open in the sanctioned plan in the place of the existing shop in possession of the appellant and submitted with some real force that unless the respondent also raised construction on that the space presently occupied by the appellant, in strict terms of section 17(2)(vi) of Rent Act, 1963, ejectment of the appellant was Not justifiable.
11. ' In my opinion, it was Not a reasonable construction of the subsection and consequently is Not acceptable to the Court. It makes a fetish of a mere technicality and stretches it to a breaking point. It is Not the intent of law that reconstructed building must embrace and cover every inch of the site as a whole and Not leave any space vacant on which previous building or part of it sought to be demolished existed. Such a construction shall militate against right of improvement of property by its owner and place unreasonable restrictions on his indubitable right in that direction.
12. Therefore, the argument is Not well-founded and is repelled. Consequent upon expiry of the initial period of ten years, tenancy was Not extended for a further term of ten years by any deed in writing. Statement on oath by the appellant duly corroborated by putting in approved plan from the Cantt. Board was a sufficient proof to establish his bona fides about requirement of the shop for its total demolition and reconstruction. There is No material evidence to discredit or cast doubts upon reasonableness of his purpose. Therefore, the appeal fails with costs and is dismissed accordingly. Appellant is allowed three months to vacate subject to payment of three months' rent in advance on 10th of each month. In default of payment of rent by the due date, appellant shall forfeit this concession. Records shall be returned.