1. ' F.R.As. Nos.564 to 577 and 579 of 1994 are disposed of by this common judgment as the shops are in the same premises, facts in the appeals are same, Respondent is same but only appellants are different. These appeals have been filed against the judgments/orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, Karachi East, dated 16-8-1994.
2. ' Ejectment application was filed against appellants by the respondent through his attorney Mushtaque A. Kashif, stating therein that the applicant inherited Plot No 15/8 Block-3 Behar Muslim Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi from his father alongwith his brother Ferozuddin. The plot was bifurcated into two portions and the appellants are tenants of the shops constructed on the portion of the plot which came in the share of the respondent. The respondent is presently residing in a Katcha tenement in the portion of plot which came in the share of his brother and he needed the premises for construction of a bungalow for his personal bona fide use.
3. ' The appellants resisted ejectment applications and denied the requirement of the respondent for his personal bona fide need in their respective written statements.
4. ' Respondent examined himself, his brother Khawaja Ferozuddin, Muzzafar Maqsood and Abdul Waqar while appellants examined themselves. The trial Court in all the ejectment applications set the following points for determination:---
(1) Whether the applicant requires the shop on Plot No, 15/8, Block 3, Behar Muslim Cooperative Housing Society for the purpose of reconstruction?
(2) Whether the applicant requires the rented premises for his personal use and for the use of his family?
(3) What should the order be ?
5. ' The findings of the trial Court on points 1 and 2 in all the ejectment applications were in affirmative and the appellants were ordered to vacate the premises within 30 days.
6. ' Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent has not obtained sanction from the competent Authority for reconstruction of the building before filing of ejectment application which is mandatory. He has further contended that the premises are shops as such, they are commercial premises and the requirement of the respondent is for residential purpose, therefore, plea of reconstruction for bona fide need cannot be allowed.
7. ' Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the approved plan from the competent Authority is not necessarily to be obtained before filing of ejectment application but if it is obtained during the pendency of such proceedings the requirements are fulfilled and according to him in the instant cases such approved plan was obtained from the competent Authority. He further contends that appellant has not put any question in cross-examination to respondent suspecting his bona fide needs and that there is no bar for conversion of a commercial premises to a residential one Moreover, the premises in litigation was originally reserved for residential purpose, but father of the respondent had illegally constructed shops for which he had received notice for demolition from the competent Authority.
8. ' Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent has produced orders in F.R.A. No, 333 of 1991 and F.R.A. No, 480 of 1994. Both the appeals were filed by Saeed Ali who was also tenant of one of the shop belonging to respondent on the same plots. The ejectment application filed against the appellants in these appeals, were on the same grounds and facts as that of appellant Saeed Ali in F.R.A. No,333/1991 and F.R.A. No,480/1994.
9. Appellant Saeed Ali challenged the ejectment Order in High Court on the ground that the respondent has not obtained approved plan for proposed construction. The appeal (No,333/91) was allowed and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for recording evidence of the respondent about approval of the building plan. The learned Rent Controller recorded the evidence and came to the conclusion that plan for reconstruction was approved during the pendency of the proceedings, as such, fresh order of ejectment was passed which appellant Saeed Ali challenged in F.R.A. No,480/94 and the same was dismissed with costs by my learned brother Justice Abdur Rahim Kazi (as he then was) hodling that the building plan has been approved during pendency of the proceedings, as such, requirement is fulfilled.
10. In the instant appeals though the building plan was not approved at the time of filing of the ejectment application but was approved during the pendency of the proceedings. As such, this case is exactly identical to F.R.A. No,480/94 where the point decided was that even if the plan is approved during the pendency of the proceedings it is a valid approval and ejectment can be ordered. Same view is taken in case of M/s. Pak Army Furnishing Stores v. Syed Ali Akbar Rizvi and 3 others PLD 1985 Kar. 201 where a reference was made to the case of Chaudhry Ghulam Muhammad v. Khalid Mehmood and 7 others PLD 1977 Lah.
11. 1110. Ejectment can even be ordered if once sanction is obtained, but expired during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings as renewal of sanction is merely a formality and it is not reasonable for the landlord to get the sanction renewed every year as held in Rasheed Brothers, Faisalabad v.
12. Chaudhry Muhammad Anwar Khan 1981 SCMR 782 and also in case of Hashwani Sales Services Ltd. v. KBCA and 15 others PLD 1986 Kar.
13. 393.
14. ' As regards contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the conversion of a commercial premises to a residential one, admittedly, the plot was reserved for residential purpose but father of respondent had unauthorisedly constructed shops which were rented out to the appellants and that competent Authority had issued notice for demolition of these shops. Even otherwise under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, there is no bar for conversion of a residential premises into a commercial one or vice versa and such permission may be obtained from civic agencies. Reference in this respect can be made to Mohiuddin Ahmed v. Mst. Noor Aaisha Khatoon 1991 M LD 1054 and Mst. Amtul Begum v. Sarwar Qadri and 3 others 1991 CLC 1157. In case of Abdul Malik v. Haji Ejaz Ahmed 1985 CLC 1546 it has been held that even if a non-residential building is let out for non-residential purpose and the landlord makes out a case of bona fide requirement for accommodating large family, no bar existed for the landlord to get his premises vacated on that ground. Same view is taken in case of Naseer Ahmed v. Mst. Kaneez Fatima 1989 M LD 2273. In case of S.A. Hafeez v. A.B.K. Hamidi 1990 M LD 1644 it has been held that mere usage of portion of plot for the commercial purpose would not mean the premises had turned to "be non- residential. The premises, for all intents and purposes, were and still are residential premises. Same is held in case of Anis Ahmed and others v. HBL, Karachi 1992 CLC 1304.
15. ' The respondent has fully proved his bona fide need of constructing a bungalow for residential purpose. He has deposed that he is living in a Katcha construction in the portion of plot of his brother. No question has been put to him in the cross-examination by the appellants to challenge his contention of bona fide need. He has deposed that his brother who is residing in Toronto will finance the construction of the bungalow for which plan has been approved by the competent Authority. Law prohibits re-letting of the premises which once got vacated on the ground of bona fide need even after reconstruction. As such, it can be safely presumed that the respondent needs the premises for his bona fide use of constructing a house. The appellants have not proved or even suggested that respondent has any other place of residence except the proposed premises.
16. ' In view of the above circumstances, 1 am of the opinion, that the order of the Rent Controller is justified according to law and the instant appeal merits no consideration and are rejected as such with no order as to costs. Appellant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within three months of the passing of the Order.