' MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J---Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 16-5-1995 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a rent matter, was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners are occupying the disputed house which is situated in the commercial area. The petitioners were sought to be evicted from the house by the respondent- landlord on the ground of its conversion into commercial market after re-building it. The petitioners resisted their eviction. By the order dated 15-6-1994, the learned Rent Controller, Kohat, ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from the house.
3. The petitioners assailed this order in an appeal in the District Court, Kohat, but without any success. They challenged the said order in the High Court in a Constitutional petition substantially on the ground that the disputed property was residential in nature which could not be legally converted into commercial market after reconstruction. In support of this proposition, provisions of section 11 of the N.-W.F.P. Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) (hereinater called as the Ordinance) were invoked. This stance was held by the learned Judges of the Division Bench to be "unfounded because the impugned order has a semblance of the permission contemplated by section 11 of the Ordinance. In this context, the reasons that weighed with the learned Judges were two-fold; firstly, that it was "inconsistent with the stance taken by the petitioners in the writ petition; "secondly, that at the time of creation of the tenancy the property in dispute was not an industrial unit and its subsequent conversion into a Factory does not enjoy the blessings of the landlord. In consequence, the writ petition was dismissed in limited.
4. Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners realizing that section 11 of the Ordinance is not attracted invoked the provisions of section 13 (2) (vi) to contend that the law prevents a residential building from being reconstructed into a commercial one.
5. The proposition is by now well-settled that "clause (vi) of subsection (2) of section 13 of the Ordinance des not impose any restriction or limitation on conversion of non-residential building to that of residential one". In this context, reference may be made to: (i) Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain (PLD 1978 SC 78), (ii) Ghulam Nabi v. Mushtaq Ahmad (PLD 1980 SC 206) and (iii) Abdul Hadi v. Ali Haider and others (PLD 1983 SC 342). The ratio in these cases can be applied by analogy to the proposition raised in this petition, viz. That section 13 (2)(vi) of the Ordinance also does not impose any restriction on conversion of a residential building into a commercial one after reconstruction.
Nonetheless, in support of this proposition since no direct authority was brought to our notice, we deemed it necessary to grant leave.
6. . Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted to consider whether provisions of section 13 (2) (iv) of the Ordinance prevent a residential building from being converted, after reconstruction, into a commercial one. .
7. Since almost identical point stands resolved by this Court in the three precedents cited above, this appeal is directed to be fixed for hearing within two months.