The respondents are the legal representatives of Haji Muhammad Ramzan since deceased who inducted Multan Glass Works, Multan as the tenant on an area of 12 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land bearing Nos.526 and 526-A in Ward No,7-M, Multan at the annual rent of Rs,2,500. The tenancy had to expire on 14-10-1986. On the said property a factory was installed by the appellant-tenant after raising the construction thereon. On 15-10-1986 the said Muhammad Ramzan filed an application for the eviction of the appellant on the solitary ground that the same was required by him in good faith for the personal use and occupation of his sons particularly when the period of tenancy had expired. The ejectment application was resisted by the appellant who contended in the written reply that the tenancy pertained to property No,526 and not about Property No,526-A which belonged to him. He pleaded that the construction of the superstructure was made by him and in case of his ejectment he was entitled to remove the same. He pleaded that he deposited the security on each count for acquisition of the Sui gas and the telephone connections. It was maintained that Muhammad Ramzan had three sons named as Muhammad Ashiq, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Aslam out of whom Muhammad Aslam worked in a flour-mills installed in Property No,524, that Haji Muhammad Ramzan sold his holding measuring 12 Kanals, 9 Marlas and 23 yards situated in the same vicinity to different persons through 12 registered sale-deeds, that the aforesaid three sons of Haji Muhammad Ramzan purchased an area measuring 63 Kanals and 17 Marlas at Mauza Sher Shah which was being cultivated by Muhammad Ashiq, that Muhammad Akram was employed as Boiler Engineer in M. Muzaffar-ud-Din Tanneries Limited, Multan and that Haji Muhammad Ramzan had other Property bearing No,525-C and No,577/1 which were rented out by him to other persons. He pleaded that Haji Muhammad Raman landlord had come to the Court with unclean hands and was not entitled to the proposed relief.
2. According to the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed for determination:-- ISSUES:
(1) Whether the premises in dispute are required in good faith by the petitioner for the use of his ons?
(1-A) Whether there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in respect of the Property Unit No,526-A? OPA.
(1-B)Whether the respondent has made any construction etc. over the suit property, if so, its legal effect and its value?
(1-C) Whether the respondent has made any construction over the Property Unit No,526-A, if so, its legal effect and its value? OPR.
(1-D) Whether the respondent has got installed the Sui gas and electric and has deposited its security, if so, to what extent and its legal effect?OPR.
(1-E)Whether the petitioner has come with unclean hands, if so, its legal effect? OPR.
(2) Relief.
3. The parties produced their evidence, oral as well as documentary. Haji Muhammad Ramzan died during the pendency of the ejectment petition and his legal representatives were impleaded. After hearing the parties learned trial Court relied upon the statements of Muhammad Aslam, A.W.2, Muhammad Akram, A.W.3 and their father Muhammad Ramzan landlord A.W.4 and held that the male issues of Muhammad Ramzan required the property in good-faith for their personal use and occupation The appeal preferred by the appellant before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record before me. Only issues Nos.1 and 1-E have been argued before me as learned counsel for the respondents of this appeal (at present landlords) conceded that the appellant may be allowed to the refund of the security of the Sui gas and telephone connections and the removal of the superstructure constructed on the disputed property. According to him the possession of the property rented out to the appellant by Muhammad Ramzan may be delivered. Learned counsel for the appellant also conceded that both the properties bearing Nos.526 and 526-A were obtained on rent by the appellant from Muhammad Ramzan on which the superstructure was constructed and the machinery was installed. He was satisfied with respect to the concession allowed by the learned counsel for the respondents of this appeal about the removal of the superstructure and the withdrawal of the aforesaid securities. However; he questioned the bona fide requirement of the respondents of this appeal for the use and occupation of the disputed property.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to copies of sale-deeds Exh. R-21 to Exh. R-32 and asserted that some land was sold by Muhammad Ramzan during the pendency of the tenancy, that admittedly an application for ejectment of the tenant from the area comprising 21 Marlas of land was instituted against some other tenant which was withdrawn and that Muhammad Ramzan admittedly owned some other property in the same vicinity. He laid the emphasis that other property was available to the landlord and on this ground the appellant cannot be ejected. I do not agree with him. The aforesaid material been though admitted by the respondents is not enough to establish the mala fides of the landlords as canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The learned counsel for the landlords has rightly expressed that it is the choice of the landlords to use that property which according to their own desire is suitable for the business they have to start.
This assertion has no merit. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the disputed property has been acquired by the Multan Development Authority, Multan and no executable order can be passed for the ejectment of the appellant. It would be an error to agree with him. No material has been brought on the file to make out that the possession of the disputed property is required by the Multan Development Authority, Multan. It is a common sense that the land is acquired by the aforesaid type of Development Authority and yet the same is not used. This is a matter between the landlords and the Multan Development Authority and the appellant has no concern with the same so as to non-suit the landlords. It was next argued that according to Notification dated 1-11-1986 no industrial unit can be set up within the territorial limits of Municipal Corporation, Multan. Since the exemption clause is mentioned in this Notification, the same would not prejudice the merits of the case of the landlords. Even otherwise this is a matter between the Authority which issued the Notification and the landlords while the tenant/appellant is a stranger thereto who is not entitled to the legal benefit thereof.
6. Last of all it was asserted that no evidence has been brought on the record about the quantum of bank balance with the landlords and the paper plans to justify their stand that they desired to start their own business. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords the desire of the landlords has to play the legal role. Legally after obtaining the possession of the property they shall have to use the same for their own business. The penal provisions contained under subsection (4) of section 13 of the Urban Rent Restrict Ordinance, 1959 affords suifficient safeguards against the landlord acting in bad faith. The ejectment petition has not been filed with unclean hands which is based on bona fides and findings of the learned Trial Court on issues Nos.1 and 1-E are, accordingly, affirmed in favour of the landlords.
7. At this stage it shall not be out of place to express that I agree with the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords who argued before me that the judgments of both the lower Courts being not at variance and the discretion having been used in favour of the landlords it is equitable and proper that no interference is made in the jurisdiction exercised thereof.
8. For what has been said above, I see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same. In view of the long standing relations between the parties for institution of the tenancy during the year 1966, they are left to be there on costs.
9. As expressed above, the appellant-tenant shall be entitled to remove the superstructure and machinery and to withdraw the security of Sui gas and telephone connections from the concerned departments. He shall hand over the vacant possession of the rented land within a period of four months to the landlords failing which he shall be liable to the dispossessed through the agency of the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Multan.