1. Disposed of as infructous in view of the order, proposed to be passed, at serial No.2.
2. I have examined the plaintiffs Nos.3, 4, 5, 9 and 11, besides Muhammad Essa, attorney of defendants Nos.1(a) to (c) and Zahid Nadeem, Deputy Controller of Buildings, Zone-17. All the five Plaintiffs state that no notice prior to the one dated 25-1-1999 was served on them and hearing was not accorded to any of the plaintiffs in terms of section 14 of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979. The attorney of defendants Nos.1(a) to (c) states that the subject property was declared dangerous in the year 1979 and was purchased by his principals in the year 1995, According to the attorney of defendants Nos.1(a) to (c), 42 tenants were in occupation of the subject building and 26 tenants, out of the above, have already vacated the tenements in their respective occupation upon payment of compensation by the said Defendants. It is further stated by the attorney of defendants Nos.1(a) to (c) that the present suit has been filed mala fide in order to extract more money for vacating the premises in occupation of Plaintiffs. It is further stated by Muhammad Essa that the subject structure was inspected and surveyed by three different departments including K.B.C.A. during the year 1997.
The concerned Deputy Controller of Buildings states that the plaintiffs and the other tenants were not provided opportunity of hearing before issuance of notice dated 25-1-1999 but asserts that the building is dangerous.
After the parties were examined, as above, all the learned counsel sought time to consider the scope of controversy remaining in the matter. Now, the matter has been called again. The learned counsel for defendant No.2, under instructions, states that the notice dated 25-1-1999 (Annexure 'A' to the plaint) is' withdrawn by the Authority but seeks permission to initiate proceedings under section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance afresh with further assurance that the matter shall be examined with open mind and strictly in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiffs apprehend foul play and partisan attitude.
Be that as it may, looking at the relief, sought by the plaintiffs, it is evident that upon withdrawal of notice dated 25-1-1999, no triable issue remains in the matter and the suit is to be disposed of under Order XV, C.P.C. Resultantly, the suit is disposed of by recording the statement of the defendant No.2 that the notice dated 25-1-1999 stands withdrawn and no action would be taken pursuant thereto.
Since the issue of dangerous buildings involves the life and property of public at large, the defendant No.2 may initiate proceedings under section A 14 of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, de novo, if the circumstances so require but strictly in accordance with law.
It may be observed that the plaintiffs shall b at liberty to urge mala fides and other grounds as were pleaded in the present suit in case proceedings, as above, are initiated afresh by the defendant No.2.
The parties shall bear their own costs.