1. This second appeal under section 15(4). Of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) is directed against, the order dated 13-6-1976-- passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Karachi, whereby he affirmed the order dated 21-8-1975 passed by the learned Rent Controller directing ejectment of the appellants.
2. Briefly, the facts are that respondents are landlords of a single storey building situated on plots bearing Survey Nos. 18 and 19 Sheet GK-8, Bunder Road, Karachi, and the appellants are their tenants in respect of one of the godowns in the said building on a monthly rent of Rs. 461. On 21-1- 1973, the respondents filed an application for ejectment of the appellants on the ground that premises were reasonably in good faith required by them for reconstructing a modern three- storeyed building consisting of godowns on the ground floor and offices and residential accommodation on the upper floors.
3. The appellant contested the application and in their written statement denied that the respondents wanted to reconstruct the building and also disputed reasonableness and the bona fides of the respondents.
4. On the above pleadings, the necessary issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller and both the parties led evidence. Respondents examined their Manager and attorney J. R. Alexander who produced all the material documents while the appellants examined one of their partners, namely, Abu Bakr.
5. The learned Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence, both oral as well as documentary, gave a finding in favour of the respondents and allowed the application by his order dated 21-8- 1975 and directed the appellants to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents. The appellant thereafter went in appeal before the learned III Additional District Judge who formed the view that there was sufficient material on record to show that the respondents really intended to construct -a multi---storeyed building which was a carrying need for a city like Karachi and had thus proved their reasonableness and bona fides for requiring. The premises in question and in support relied upon PLD 1972 Quetta 39, wherein landlord's desire to improve and develop substantially his property was ---., considered to be reasonable. Hence this Second Appeal.
6. Mr. Jan Mohammad Dawood, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the bona fides of the respondent for reconstructing the new multistoreyed building were not made out, inasmuch as, the respondents did not examine any of the directors incharge of the project, but examined only their Manager and Attorney who, as shown by his evidence, was not fully coversant with the affairs of the Company.
7. I find no force in the contention. The record would show that Mr. B. J. Alexander was the Manager of the respondent-Company and was examined on behalf of the respondents, as their attorney under a Power---of-Attorney executed in his favour by the respondent. . In his evidence, he testified to the facts alleged in the application and produced all the necessary documents required for reconstructing the proposed new building. He also stated there in that earlier also he had issued notice to and carried on the correspondence with the opponents for vacating the premises which showed that for the relevant purposes he was sufficiently aware of the affairs of the Company and it was not necessary for the respondents to have examined a director of their Company.
8. The learned counsel next contended that in order to show their bona fides, and financial soundness for reconstructing the proposed new building, the respondents ought to have produced account books . Etc., of their other firms and by not doing so, the best evidence was withheld by the respondents from the Court.
9. I find no force in this contention as well. Indeed, in order to prove that his requirement is reasonable and bona fide, a landlord has to prove the plans, the necessary estimates, the required sanctions, and funds to show that he honestly means to carry out his intention of constructing a new building.
10. Now, it is an admitted position in the instant case that the respondent had produced the plan of the Ks. Building (Exh. 4), the sanction of the KMC and its Architect (Ex Ks. 5 and 6). The order of the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi giving permission for reconstruction (Exh. 7), and letter (Exh. 10) from the Bank of America showing therein that the respondent had lying to their credit balance of Rs. 20,19,761.56 on 15-3-1975. Further the new building proposed to be constructed by the respondent is to cosist of three storeys having godowns on the ground floor and offices and residential accommodation on the upper floors which showed that the respondents wanted to improve and substantially develope their property to provide more and better accommodation, and it was, indeed, held by my Lord Dorab F. Patel, as his Lordship then was, in the case reported a PLD 1972 Quetta 39 that a landlord's desire to improve and develop substantially his property is reasonable and clause (vi) of subsection (2) of section 13 entitles a landlord to rebuild his property if the construction, amounts to its substantial improvement or development. That being so the respondent had amply proved their reasonableness and bona fides and their financial soundness for reconstructing the building and were not required to produce account books of all their other firms, particularly when the appellant had failed to produce anything tangible on record to doubt the bona fides of the respondent and to show that they were financially not sound to raise the construction. Further, both the Courts below felt satisfied on the basis of the material produced on record that the respondent were in a position to raise the necessary funds for the purpose of reconstruc--ting the new building and I see no justification, nor has any been made out by the learned counsel, to interfere with their finding.
11. The learned counsel next contended that the respondent ought to have filed joint application against all the tenants of the building because if the respondent failed to get the ejectment order in respect of any one of the tenements of the building, they would not be able to reconstruct the building and the appellant would neither get back their godown nor get the premises in the reconstructed building. To this, Mr. Nafisuddin, learned counsel for the respondent, replied that th-,re being different tenements occupied by different tenants separate applications were competently filed and that, as provided by Order I, rule 13, C. P. C., such an objection ought to have been raised by the appellants at the earliest opportunity in their written statement and before the Rent Controller, and since the appellant failed to do so, they were not entitled to raise this objection at this stage. He further submitted that, apart from this technical objection, the respondent had applied for ejectment of all the other tenants and had obtained ejectment orders against number of them and only few cases were pending in appeal which, they expected, would be disposed of very soon whereafter they will be in a position to build the new building within the stipulated period and accommodate the appellants therein as provided by law and, therefore, , the apprehension of the appellants was baseless and imaginary.
12. There is substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents.
13. Admittedly, there are several tenements in this building occupied by different tenants. The respondent could. Therefore. Competently file separate applications against the various tenants.
14. Besides, it is not disputed that the respondents have filed ejectment applications against all the tenants of the building and have in fact obtained ejectment orders against number of them and only in some cases appeals are pending which, as assured by the learned counsel for the respondents, are likely to be decided very soon. Further, in any case, the apprehension of the appellant that they will not be able to get back their godown if the respondents failed to reconstruct the new building due to their financial position or their failure to get any one tenant ejected, the same stands sufficiently safeguarded by the Ordinance itself which provides in subsec--tions (5) and (5-A) of section 13 that in case the landlord, after getting the premises vacated for construction, fails to raise the construction within the stipulated period, he will be liable for criminal prosecution and the tenant would be entitled to claim restoration of possession of the premises vacated by him. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is found to be without substance. As to the further apprehension shown by Mr. Jan Mohammad Dawood that if the respondents failed to get any tenant ejected, they were likely to plead this as sufficient cause for their inability to raise the new building within the stipulated period and thus escape the liability for criminal prosecution and restoring possession of the godowns to them, the apprehension besides being hypothetical is also premature and far-fetched, as it I s not legitimate to assume that the Courts will not exercise their jurisdiction according to law and will lightly ignore the provisions of the law which are made for the protection and interest of a tenant and will readily accept such an explanation, particularly when) the apprehension has been expressed by a tenant much long before the, jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in this respect is invoked.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the concurrent finding of the Courts below, supported as it is by the material on` record, does not call for interference in this second appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. The appellants are given one month's time to vacate the premises and hand over its possession to the respondents.