1. ' This is an appeal under section 24 of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (hereinafter called Rent Act) directed against an order, dated 28th September, 1991, passed by learned Rent Controller, Cantonment Board, Drig Road, Karachi in a Rent Case No,8 of 1988, Abdul Rauf v. Muhammad Sadiq whereby an application under section 17 of the said Rent Act was allowed and the appellant/tenant was ordered to vacate the premises within sixty days, hence this appeal.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that appellant is tenant of respondent in respect of room No,83/6, being portion of Godown No,1, situated at Cantt. Bazar Drig Road, Karachi, against whom the respondent filed eviction application under section 17 of the Rent Act on the ground that he wanted to demolish the building for reconstructing a new building on the same site for which he has obtained the necessary sanction for such construction from the Cantonment Board. The appellant/tenant filed written statement wherein he denied the averments of the eviction application and stated that premises was not required by the respondent for reconstruction as stated and further that the respondent has not made complete and legal formalities required for seeking eviction on the ground of reconstruction of new building but has filed frivolous application just to evict the appellant from the premises. The respondent filed affidavit in evidence of Haji Khalid Mehmood who produced necessary sanctioned plan for rescontruction and sanctioned letter. The appellant/tenant filed his affidavit in evidence and produced affidavit in evidence of Abdul Karim.
3. The deponents who filed the affidavit in evidence, were cross-examined by the respective adversary counsel for parties. After recording the above evidence by the learned Rent Controller, eviction application was allowed as said above.
4. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent has produced the construction plan in respect of Godown No,1 which showed an area of 2800 sq. Ft. To be constructed whereas in the cross-examination, the respondent stated that entire area of Godown No,1 was 1197 sq.Ft., therefore, it would not be practically possible for the respondent to raise construction according to approved plan over the area of 2800 sq.Ft., consequently, the other tenants who were occupying the adjoining godowns will be affected against whom no case has been filed. He further contends that the godown which is not residential is to be demolished and reconstructed to a residential building cannot be raised by the respondent in absence of necessary permission ill writing from the Controller as required by section 14 of Rent Act, therefore, the eviction of the appellant cannot be allowed in absence of the required permission of the Rent Controller. The last contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the consideration that because there was a provision of section 15-A in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance whereby in such cases if eviction is ordered, the tenant who is effected, is to be restored in possession after the building is raised but because such provision did not find place under the said Rent Act, therefore, the discretion exercised in favour of respondent, should not be exercised by this appellate Court in case eviction order is maintained.
5. ' Contention of learned counsel for respondent is that the learned Rent Controller has properly considered the evidence adduced by the respondent/landlord and has also correctly applied provisions of rent laws therefore, the impugned order is legal and proper except that the appellant/tenant could not be restored to the possession of the area of which he is in possession because there exists no such provision under section 17 of the Rent Act. So far the contention that section 14 would be barred to the grant of eviction, he has contended that the plea of said bar would not be available to a tenant who is to be evicted. In the said respect, he has placed reliance upon Mst. Sheerin Bai Muhammad Ali v. Tassadaq Mehmood (1989 CLC 1401) wherein learned Judge in Chambers observed that section 14 places a restriction on the conversion of a residential building into a commercial building and vice versa but it does not constitute a ground for resisting an application in which ejectment has been sought on the ground of reconstruction and in the cited case reference has also been made to Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mst. Surraya Sultana (PLD 1966 Lahore 406) and same principle was reiterated in another reported case Raja Muhammad Khan v.
6. Babu Fazal Karim (PLD 1973 Note 131 at p. 201) and Khushi Muhammad v. Mst. Anwar Begum, (PLD 1982 Lahore 295).
7. I have gone through the entire evidence produced by the parties. The respondent/landlord in order to seek eviction on the ground of reconstruction of new building after demolition of old building, has to prove only that he needed the site for constructing a new building on the same site and has also obtained necessary sanction for such construction from the Cantonment Board. The respondent in his eviction application in para. 7 has stated the said fact which has been reiterated by him in his affidavit in evidence. The respondent was cross-examined by the learned counsel for appellant at length but his veracity in respect of said fact could not be shaken. The plea raised by the appellant that because the sanctioned plan was in respect of 2800 sq. Ft. Whereas in fact as stated in the cross by respondent, area of godown was only 1197 sq.Ft. Therefore, the building could not be raised on the area mentioned in the building approved plan has no substance considering that whatever area would be available the construction could be raised according to area after getting the revised plan approved from competent Authority, further extract from the office of Cantonment Board has been produced before me at the instance of the Court which by itself showed that total area of godown to be 1200 plus 1600 sq.Ft total making 2800 sq.Ft. The counsel for appellant objected that this aspect of the case cannot be considered at the appellate stage. I do not find substance in the said contention as well considering that in his presence this document was called to be produced and he was given opportunity to go through it which being a public document its authenticity cannot be doubted.
8. ' Learned counsel for respondent has contended that the appellant Muhammad Sadiq has left the premises and is living in his own house in Golden Town, therefore, question of restoration of possession to him as ordered in the connected case, would not arise. No counter-affidavit denying the said statement has been filed by the appellant. In the circumstances, the said concession which is not provided in section 17 of Rent Act, cannot be extended to the appellant and to which the counsel for respondent and the respondent himself also did not agree hence, such restoration of possession to the appellant cannot be ordered.
9. ' In view of the aforesaid evidence, reasonings and case law, I do not find substance in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. However, six months' period is given to appellant to vacate the premises to which counsel for respondent has agreed.
10. ' Disposed of.