' This first rent appeal under section 21 of Sindh. Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the S.R.P.O., 1979) is directed against the judgment, dated 30-5-1988 passed by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi (West) whereby Ejectment Application No,581 of 1985 (Old No,1367 of 1984) was allowed and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the Shops Nos.2 and 5 situated on Plot No,101 Commercial Area Liaquatabad, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises).
2. The demised premises is in occupation of the appellant/tenant. The ejectment of the appellant was sought on the sole ground of reconstruction.
3. The appellant filed written statement and contested the ejectment application on the ground that the respondent has no plan duly sanctioned or approved by the competent Authority and that the approval already accorded by the K.B.C.A. Was for only one year which had lapsed due to passage of time. Thus, the respondent could not seek ejectment of the appellant on the ground of reconstruction.
4. On the sole point of reconstruction, the respondent's attorney filed affidavit-in-evidence alongwith photostat copies of the power of attorney, approval certificate and notice sent by the respondent through his learned counsel to the appellant.
5. The appellant filed his own affidavit-in-evidence and also of another witness namely Sarfraz son of Noor Muhammad. Both the witnesses were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the parties. Ultimately, the learned Rent Controller answered the sole point in favour of the respondent and allowed ejectment application.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that finding of the learned trial Court is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence on record. He also stressed that the ground of reconstruction is covered by section 15(2)(vi) of the S.R.P.O., 1979 which required production of sanction for reconstruction and this being a mandatory requirement of law, it was not complied with. Therefore, ejectment application was not maintainable. Furthermore, the photostat copies of the documents produced by the respondent are not admissible in evidence. He also submitted that the respondent had no funds for reconstruction, and he had rented out some tenaments to other persons, therefore, the ejectment proceedings were mala fide. He also questioned the validity of the affidavit-in-evidence of the attorney of the respondent. In support of his submissions the learned counsel relied upon the case-law reported as Rana Muhammad Shabbir (deceased) through his 10 L.HRs, v. Muhammad Ismail and 3 others 1990 CLC 546, Abdul Rehman v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 2347, Master Muhammad Bashir v. Moinuddin 1990 CLC 703 and Habib Bux v: Zahoor-ul- Hassan 1986 CLC 1119.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the impugned order referred to the case- law reported as Messrs Service Industries Ltd. v. Muhammad Marghoob and another 1986 SCM R 637, Syed Abdul Halim v. Ghulam Mohiuddin PLD 1994 SC 52, Hashwani Sales and Service Ltd. v.
Karachi Building Control Authority and 15 others PLD 1986 Kar. 393, Naseem Ahmed v. Abdul Razzak 1987 CLC 702, Spectrum Communications Ltd., Karachi v. MRs, Nasim Bashir 1996 CLC 936, Safdar Butchers v. Khawaja Pervezuddin Butt PLD 1996 Kar. 508, Saeed Ahmed Khan v. The Inspecting Assistant . Commissioner of Income-tax (Survey), Hyderabad Range and another 1995 M LD 155.
9. The burden to prove that the respondent require the demised premises for reconstruction was on the respondent, which he has successfully discharged. The plea on this point, in the application, notice and affidavit-inevidence of the witness of respondent is consistent. The respondent through his witness has produced copy of approved plan. In cross-examination he admitted that the approval was accorded for one year but at the same time he stated that he had applied to the competent authority for renewal but was asked to submit consent of tenant, which he could not get due to refusal of the appellant. He denied the suggestion that he wanted enhancement in rent or that in order to put pressure on the appellant, he initiated ejectment proceedings. It has come in evidence that after reconstruction the respondent would be willing to let out the premises to the appellant according to law and this piece of evidence has not been challenged in cross- examination which shows that the plea of reconstruction is not mala fide. Regarding renewal of sanction of reconstruction suffice it to observe that this being just a formality, it was not necessary for the landlord to get sanction renewed every year during pendency of the ejectment proceedings in view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rashid Brothers, Faisalabad v.
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan 1981 SCMR 782. It is also the case of the appellant that the respondent has no funds for reconstruction, otherwise, he would not have rented out the other premises in the same building. There is no force in this submission as it is not necessary that the respondent should have disclosed the source and other details about the funds. The very fact that he got the plan approved and his commitment to let out the premises to the appellant after reconstruction according to law fully supports his claim. Therefore, findings of the learned trial Court on this point need no interference. As far as the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant that the witness of the respondent has not filed affidavit-in-evidence according to law and production of photostat copies are concerned, suffice it to say that these objections were not taken by him before the learned trial Court. The fact is that the learned counsel had cross-examined the witness and also referred to the photostat copies of document produced by him, therefore, it is deemed that he had not raised any objection. At this stage this point being afterthought cannot be agitated before this Court.
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that plea of the respondent for ejectment of appellant on the ground of reconstruction of the building is fully established. Accordingly, this appeal having no merit is dismissed. The appellant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises within sixty (60) days subject to payment of rent.