1. ' This first rent appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter refereed as "the Ordinance"), calls in question an order of eviction, dated 31-3-1993, passed by the, 1st Rent Controller, Sukkur in R.A. No,55 of 1991, directing the eviction of the appellants from the disputed property on the sole ground of reconstruction as pleaded by the respondent in his rent application.
2. ' On 6-5-1991 the respondent Abdul Majeed Khan son of Abdul Waheed Khan filed an application under section 15 of the Ordinance, stating therein that he is the sole owner of property bearing C.S. No,D3352/A situated at Bunder Road, Sukkur, comprising of 12 godowns on the ground floor with no other construction on the upper portion of the said property. In para. No,2 of his rent application the respondent gave necessary details about the area and the rate of rent of his 8 tenants occupying the ground floor go downs. Of his property. He further stated that he wants to reconstruct a new multi-storied building at the site of his property in possession of these tenants and for this purpose he has obtained necessary sanction from Sukkur Municipal Corporation on 20-2-1991 sand also got approved the building plan from the said authority. For this reason the respondent filed a single rent application against all the eight tenants of his building seeking their eviction on the ground of reconstruction as provided under section 15(2)(vi) of the Ordinance.
3. ' On service of notice of this rent. Application the appellants Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 filed their joint written statement, however, as it appears from the record, it was not signed by the appellant No,8.
4. In their written statement the appellants admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant, however, they denied the claim of the respondent that he wants to reconstruct his property and submitted that in fact the respondent wanted enhancement in rent for which they had refused and that he is also anxious to sell away this property and, therefore, he is seeking eviction of the appellants on the ground of reconstruction with a mala fide intention.
5. ' On these pleadings of the parties before the Rent Controller the respondent filed his own affidavit in evidence and along with it he filed certified true copy of the City Survey Extract of Property No,B- 3352/A as Annexure 'A', approved building plan of proposed multi-storied building as Annexure 'B' and the original sanction letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Sukkur Municipal Corporation, dated 20th February, 1991 as Annexure 'C'. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellants and his side was closed on 27-1-1992. The appellants at the stage of their evidence filed affidavit in evidence of appellants Wahi Khan, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Yousif, Muhammad Rasheed an one Muhammad Daud. All these appellant were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent, however, witness Muhammad Daud did not appear and w given up by the counsel of the appellants an side of the appellants was closed by their counsel on 3-3-1993.
6. ' On appraisal of evidence adduce before the learned Rent Controller, the learned. Rent Controller decided the issue of reconstruction in favour of the respondent Ordered the eviction of the appellants from the disputed property, allowing them three months' time for vacating the same.
7. ' After presentation of the appeal before this Court on 27-4-1993, the same was admitted for regular hearing on 16-9-1993 with directions for fixation of this appeal for regular hearing on 13-10- 1993. Thereafter, several times this appeal came up for regular hearing before the Court but could not proceed, and in the meantime on 29-2-1996 the appellants also moved an application under section 21(3) of the Ordinance being C.M.A. 58 of 1996 which was also heard by me along with the main appeal on 31-5-1999.
8. ' Mr. M.A. Rasheed the learned counsel for the appellants with reference to his application under section 21(3) of the Ordinance (C.M.A. 58 of 1996) has argued that respondent has entered into an agreement of sale with the appellant Bashir Ahmed in respect of three go downs of the disputed property and such written agreement has been executed between the parties on 31-10-1992 and, therefore, this original agreement may be allowed to be placed on record and further enquiry in the matter may be ordered with reference to this agreement. A counter-affidavit to this application is Submitted by the respondent, wherein he has totally denied the claim of the respondent Bashir Ahmed in this regard and stated that the said agreement to sale is a forged and fabricated document and the respondent has never entered into any such transaction with the appellant Bashir Ahmed. To substantiate his stand the respondent in his counter-affidavit also referred to the proceedings before the Rent Controller to show that if any such agreement was executed between the parties on 31-10-1992 then why till the final disposal of his ejectment application by the Rent Controller on 31-3-1993 this agreement was not produced before the learned Rent Controller or even disclosed by the appellant Bashir Ahmed, in his affidavit in evidence filed in Court on 21st December, 1992. Mr. Abdul Naeem the learned counsel for the respondent has advanced his arguments on C.M.A. 58 of 1996 on the same line as asserted by the respondent in his counter- affidavit.
9. ' After considering the arguments of both the learned counsel on C.M.A. 58 of 1996 I have no hesitation to observe that such an application has been moved by the appellant Bashir Ahmed with the sole object of distracting and delaying the proceedings of this appeal which is already pending adjudication for more than six years. Admittedly till this date appellant Bashir Ahmed is tenant of the respondent in respect of the disputed property and he is depositing the rent of the tenement in his possession in the office of the learned Rent Controller in the name of the respondent. In such circumstances without touching to the genuineness or otherwise of the alleged sale agreement, dated 31-10-1992 the fact remains that the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the respondent and appellant Bashir is still in existence and, thus, no purpose will be served by allowing the production of this sale agreement in Court at this belated stage and ordering any further enquiry in the matter. In view of this position C.M.A. 58 of 1996 is hereby dismissed.
10. ' Reverting to the arguments of the learned counsel on the main appeal, Mr. M.A. Rasheed the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the respondent is not serious in the demolition of the disputed property and reconstruction or erection of new building on the same site but this whole exercise on his part is mala fide as he intends to sale out the disputed property and in such circumstances if the impugned eviction order passed by the Rent Controller is maintained by this Court the poor appellants will be dislocated and deprived of their source of livelihood., In support of his contentions the learned counsel has placed his reliance on the case- law reported as Abdul Rashid etc. v. Ghulam Dastgir (1981 SCM R 1087) and Abdul Rauf and others v.
11. Abdul Hamid Khan and others (PLD 1965 SC 671) and lastly submitted that this appeal may be allowed and eviction application may be dismissed.
12. ' Mr. Abdu1 Naeem, the learned counsel for the respondent has strongly controverted these arguments and at the outset submitted that all the; appellants have not contested the matter, emitter before the Pent Controller or before this Court but malafidely the names of two appellants Muhammad Ashfaq and Barkat All have been shown in the array of appellants in the present appeal at Serials Nos.4 and 5. In This contemn. He also referred to an order, dated 16-9-19.93,on the face sheet of the appeal whereby this appeal to the extent of these appellants was dismissed by this Court. This factual position has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the appellants.
13. ' Replying to the other arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Abdul Naeem submitted that a-plain reading of section 15(2)(vi) of the Ordinance makes it clear that the satisfaction of the Rent Controller is only necessary to the extent that the owner/landlord has obtained necessary permission for erection of building at in site of the old building. From the competent Authority. With referenda to allegations of mala fide levelled against the respondent the learned counsel further submitted that the respondent, is ready to give in writing that he will fully- abide by the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) to section 15 of the Ordinance and such offer was also made by the respondent before the Rent Controller as incorporated in its order but it was not accepted by the appellants. In such circumstances any apprehension of the appellants that they will not be accommodated by the respondent in the newly-constructed building has no basis.
14. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has placed his reliance on the case-law reported as Sh. Muhammad Waheeduddin v. Mst. Samina Begum and 5 others (1991 M LD 1898) and Mrs. Zareen and another v. Muhammad Nawab and 3 others (1992 M LD 1690).
15. ' I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case record carefully.
16. ' In the present case eviction of the appellants is sought under section 15(2)(vi) of the Ordinance, therefore, it will be advantageous to reproduce the same as under: "15(2). The Controller shall, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises within such period as may be specified in the order, if he is satisfied that--- (i)
17. (ii)
(iii) f..........................................................
18. (a)
19. (b)
20. (c)
21. (iv)
22. (v)
(vi) the premises is required by the landlord for reconstruction or erection of a new building at the site and landlord has obtained necessary sanction for such reconstruction or erection from the authority competent under any law for the time being in force to give such sanction.
23. From a plain reading of this provision of law it is clear that for availing the benefit of clause (vi) of section 15(2) of the Ordinance 'the satisfaction of the Rent Controller is required only to extent that the A landlord requires such building for reconstruction and has obtained necessary sanction for reconstruction or erection of new building at the site from the competent Authority at the relevant time.
24. ' In the present case a perusal of the case record reveals that the respondent, in his rent application, has specifically pleaded that he wants to erect a new multi-storied building at site for which he has obtained necessary sanction for reconstruction and erection of such building from Sukkur Municipal Corporation, Sukkur and has also got approved building plan from the said authority.
25. ' At the stage of evidence the respondent has also produced in Court such original approved plan and permission of reconstruction as Annexures "B" and "C" to his affidavit in. Evidence and in his cross-examination genuineness or validity of these two documents has been not even questioned by the appellants. In addition to this out of the five appellants, who have filed their affidavit in evidence in this case and have entered into the witness-box for their cross-examination, two of the appellants viz. Wahid Khan and Muhammad Aslam have submitted such claim of the respondent in their cross-examination in the following words: "It is fact that the disputed premises are required by the applicant for reconstruction and erection of new building and the applicant ha's obtained necessary construction plan and approval from S.M.C., Sukkur, for reconstruction."
26. 'It is fact that the applicant did not want to sell the disputed premises'.
27. 'It is fact that the applicant has got the construction plan and its approval from M.C. Sukkur for Reconstruction of disputed property' ."
28. These facts available on the case record are sufficient to conclude that the respondent has not only fully complied with the requirement of clause (vi) of section 15(2) of the Ordinance for seeking eviction c. f the appellant from the disputed property. But there is also nothing against him on record to show that his claim is not bona fide.
29. ' Besides, to safeguard the interest of a tenant, the Legislature has already taken sufficient care by insertion of subsections (3) and (4) to section 15 of the Ordinance which reads as under:---
(3) Where the landlord who has obtained the possession of the premises for the purpose of reconstruction of the building or erection of a new building shall demolish the existing building within six months of the taking over of the possession of the premises or, as the case may be, commence the erection of the new building within two years of the taking over of the possession of the premises, and in case the landlord fails to demolish the building as aforesaid, the tenant shall be entitled to be put into possession of the premises and for that purpose may apply to Controller for an order in that behalf.
(4) Where the landlord constructs the building as aforesaid the tenant who was evicted from the old building may, before the completion of new building and its occupation by another person, apply to the Controller for an order directing that he be put in possession of such area in the new building as does not exceed the area of the old building of which he was in occupation and the Controller shall make an order accordingly in respect of the area applied for such smaller area, as considering the location and type of the new building and the needs of the tenant, he deems just and on payment of rent to be determined by him on the basis of rent of similar accommodation in the locality."
30. ' A bare reading of these two subsections of section 15 of the Ordinance makes it clear that in both eventualities, one where a landlord seeks eviction on the ground of reconstruction but fails to demolish the building or commence erection within the time frame provided by law and the other where a landlord reconstructs the new building at the site, a tenant has been provided a right of reduction in the building in terms of these subsections. Perhaps it is for this reason that iri a case where the eviction of a tenant is sought on the ground of reconstruction, the owner/landlord of the building has been relieved from the C responsibility of showing his resources for raising such new building at site or explaining any future prospects, benefits or utility of such new building etc., when no such intention or condition spells out from the language of the relevant provisions of the Ordinance same cannot be superimposed by the Court.
31. ' The case of Mst. Zareen and another v. Muhammad Nawab and 3 others (1992 M LD 1690) referred by the respondent's counsel is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, while the case-law referred by the learned counsel for the appellants has no relevance to the facts of the present case as none of these decisions relate to a case under clause (vi) to section 15(2) of the Ordinance.
32. The impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is based on proper appreciation of evidence, it is in accordance with law and, therefore, the same is maintained.
33. ' For the preceding reasons, this appeal and the listed C.M.A. 58 of 1996 were dismissed by a short order, dated 31-5-1999.