1. ' By this judgment I intend to dispose of above appeals being 1st Civil Appeals Nos.15 of 1991 and 16 of 1991 as both these suits were consolidated vide order, dated 21-1-1991 by the trial Court.
2. ' The facts giving rise to the instant appeals are that the agricultural land measuring 19.22 acres and 9.00 acres Sikni land belong to defendant No,4 (hereinafter known as plaintiff in Suit No,8 of 1989) and he agreed to sell the said lands to plaintiffs (hereinafter known as defendants Nos.3 to 5 in the Suit No,8 of 1989) and executed such agreement of sale on 18-12-1988 for a consideration of Rs,5,00,000 alongwith standing sugarcane crop and received an amount of Rs,1,08,000 as earnest money and such agreement was executed in presence of witnesses which was duly attested by Notary Public and the defendant No,4 has attached photostat copy of his N.I.C. Alongwith the sale agreement. It was agreed by the defendant N6.4 that he will execute registered sale-deed in favour of plaintiff on or before 18-1-1989 after receiving the balance amount of Rs,3,92,000. It is pertinent to note that said agricultural land was mortgaged with the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and the defendant No,4 has undertaken to get it cleared before the due date.
3. ' It is contended by Mr. Habibulalh Shaikh learned counsel for the appellant that in performance of contract the defendant put the plaintiff in possession of the suit land and the Sikni lands on 18-1- 1989 and the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession of the suit land. It is further urged that in the said agreement it was agreed by the parties that the price of construction of house, cattle shed and the Otak will be determined by the Amins to be appointed by the executants and the plaintiffs started the cultivation and enjoying the produce and thereafter they also constructed their house in the suit land. It is further contended by the learned counsel that after execution of sale agreement the defendant No,4 was arrested by the police of Sobhodero in a triple murder case and after due investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of law. It is further argued by the learned counsel that defendants 5 to 17 being Caste fellow of defendant No,4 instigated other Caste fellow to get the vacant possession of the suit lands forcibly from the plaintiffs and the defendant No,4 was pressurized to resile from the contract and made different attempts to occupy the said lands forcibly but the plaintiffs retained their possession, the plaintiffs were threatened to vacate the suit land. The plaintiffs also pressurized the defendant No,4 to obtain the clearance certificate and execute the registered sale-deed in their favour after receiving remaining amount. However, the defendant No,4 kept the plaintiffs in false hopes and promises and ultimately the plaintiffs were constrained to approach the Court of law for redressing their grievance. The plaintiffs facing the atrocities of the respondents/defendants filed a suit with the following prayers:- "(i) Declare the plaintiffs as the legal and legitimate owners of the suit land with possession of suit property and the defendants to have no right to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs of their possession, enjoyment over the suit land and it may be further declared that the action of the defendants 2 and 3 is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs or their relatives and anyone else on their behalf.
(ii) Defendant No,4 be ordered to perform the contract specifically and register the suit land, in favour of the plaintiffs and get his balance of Rs,3,92,000 towards the value of the suit land and Rs,20,000 as costs of his house, cattle shed and Otaq from the plaintiffs, or in the alternative this Honourable Court be pleased to execute the registered sale-deed in favour of the ' plaintiffs, for the suit property through the Nazir of this Honourable Court.
(iii) Restrain the defendants to refrain from any sort of interference with the ownership and possession of the suit property of the plaintiffs and their relatives of anyone else on their behalf in any manner either by themselves or through anyone else on their behalf.
(iv) To award any other relief as this Honourable Court may deemed fit and proper and
(v) To award the costs of the suit to plaintiffs.
4. ' The defendant No,4 also. Presented a suit being Suit No,8 of 1989 for declaration, injunction, possession and mesne profit through his attorney Muhammad Ismail stating that he is the owner of the land and has cultivated the sugarcane crop, cotton crop and has also planted Mango, palm, lemon, Zaitoon and other trees and he has incurred huge amount over it and when he was in police custody on 18-12-1988 the plaintiffs got executed a sale agreement forcibly under the coercive means without any consideration or making any payment as the S.H.O. Police Station Sobhodero was in league of the plaintiffs and the signatures were obtained by the defendant No,2 by force and the plaintiffs cut down the trees and also removed the valuable articles from the house of defendants. It is stated that defendants Nos.3 to 5 taken undue advantage of custody of respondent No,4/plaintiff and during the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs occupied the suit land forcibly hence the suit was filed with the following prayers:-
(i) That sale agreement, dated 18-12-1988 be declared null and void of no legal effect and not binding upon plaintiff.
(ii) Damages be awarded.
(iii) Permanent injunction be issued, restraining the defendants not to interfere in the rights, title and possession of plaintiff over suit land.
(iv) Costs of the suit be awarded.
(v) Any other relief."
5. ' After consolidation of the suits and from the pleadings of the parties the following consolidated issues were framed by the trial Court:--
(1) Whether the either suit is not maintainable at law?
(2) Whether the either suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?
(3) Whether Suit No,8 of 1989 is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of causes of action?
(4) Whether Suit No,8 of 1989 is undervalued and deficit court-fee is paid?
(5) Whether the agreement to sale, dated 18-12-1988, has been executed by defendant Atta Muhammad in favour of plantiff and received a sum of Rs,1,08,000 as earnest money towards sale consideration of Rs,5,00,000 only?
(6) Whether the agreement of sale, dated 18-12-1988, has been got executed by plaintiff from defendant Atta Muhammad under coercion, under pressure, and same is not binding upon the defendant Atta Muhammad and that no part payment is made to defendant Atta Muhammad?
(7) Whether the plaintiff is put in possession of suit land by defendant Atta Muhammad, in part performance of against?
(8) Whether the plaintiff trespassed into the suit land during pendency of suits and are in illegal possession of the same?
(9) Whether the suit land belongs to defendant if so, its effect?
(10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed?
(11) Whether the defendant Atta Muhammad is entitled for damages, if so to what extent?
(12) What should the decree be?
6. ' The trial Court proceeded with the case and examined the plaintiff as Exh.65 and he produced the original agreement of sale Exh.66 alongwith photostat copy of N.I.C. Exh.67 and other documents in order to prove his case, and P.W. Jan Muhammad the petition-writer and P.W. Abdul Sattar Desi, Advocate were examined as Exhs.83 and 84 respectively, whereas the plaintiff Imam Bux was also examined as Exh.80 and witness Muhammad Soomar as Exh.81 who produced the letter allegedly written by Hidayatullah the son of respondent No,4. The trial Court examined the defendant No,2 as Exh.90 by producing the Khasra Girdawri to the year 1983-84 as Exh.91. The defendant No,4 as Exh.93 and he produced the original power of attorney in favour of attorney. Ismail as Exhs.94 and 95, the true copy of challan was also produced as Exh.96 and witness Khamiso was also examined as Exh.97 and defendant closed his side vide Exh.98.
7. ' Mr. Habibullah Shaikh learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the plaintiff has relied upon the following case-law:--
(1) PLD 1968 Lah. 1076; (2) PLD 1968 Pesh. 70, (3) PLD 1972 SC 59, (4) PLD 1960 Dacca 1333, (5) PLJ 1975 Kar. 215, (6) PLD 1962 Pesh. 105, (7) PLD 1961 Kar. 486 and (8) PLD 1980 Kar.
8. 41.
9. ' Conversely Mr. A.M. Mobeen Khan learned counsel for respondent No,4 has argued that no sale agreement was executed by the respondent No,4 in favour of the appellant nor the respondent No,4 has ever received the alleged amount of Rs,1,08,000 as earnest money nor he put the appellant in possession of the suit land but on the contrary when the respondent No,4 was in police custody in a murder case the appellant in collusion with the S.H.O. Police Station Sobhodero who was in league of appellant forcibly and by coercive means obtained the signature of the defendant No,4 on the papers and the applicant forcibly occupied the land of the respondent No,4.
10. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the appellant also cut the trees and removed the valuable articles from the house of the respondent No,4. Mr. A.M. Mobeen Khan has relied upon the following case-law:--
(1) PLD 1989 SC 503, (2) PLD 1989 Lah. 399, (3) 1988 CLC 2388, (4) 2000 SCMR 204, (5) 1987 SCMR 624, (6) 1987 MLD 3016 and PLD 1986 Lah.
11. 399.
12. ' Mr. Gianchand, Advocate appearing on behalf of the official respondents has supported the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court.
13. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is conceded by the counsel that the agreement of sale in respect of suit property was made on 18-12-1988 whereas the respondents Nos.4 to 17 in their written statement as well as in the evidence admitted execution of sale agreement but stated that L.I.T. Of defendant No,4 was obtained under coercive method and by some torture with the help of S.H.O. Police Station Sobhodero as he was in police custody in murder case and some signatures were obtained under coercion and torture. It is conceded that defendant No,4 was in custody on 18-12-1988 but while cross-examining the defendant in Court it was suggested that he was arrested after 1-00 a.m. On 18-12-1988. It was also suggested in cross- examination of defendant No,4 was in physical possession of suit land on 18-12-1988. All these suggestions were denied by defendant No,4 in his cross-examination. As per challan sheet produced by defendant No,4 alongwith co-accused was arrested on 18-12-1988 at about 15 O'clock from his village falsely the plea taken by the plaintiff in respect of execution of sale agreement, handing over of possession and receipt of Rs,1,08,000 as earnest money. The agreement has been written and signed by petition-writer Jan Muhammad and which was attested by Abdul Sattar Desi, Advocate Notary Public. The plaintiff has not examined the Notary Public namely Fateh Muhammad and during the cross-examination P.W. Soomar and Abdul Sattar Desi and Jan Muhammad petition-writer have affirmed that the agreement was written at about 10-00 a.m. Or 8-00 a.m. At Gambat the same statement has been made by witness Abdul Sattar Desi, Advocate.
14. The trial Court while perusing the Exh.66 it was observed that signature of the vendor (plaintiff) was not available. The document Exh.66 was purchased in their name whereas as per its perusal it reveals that it was purchased in the name of defendant No,4 by Atta Muhammad Stamp-Vendor and on the basis of evidence advanced by the parties this Exh.66 became doubtful. As per evidence of P.W. Arbab Machhi who was brought by plaintiff from his village in his own signature and returned at Gambat at 8-00 a.m. While the defendant No,4 who returned in Court premises all along on the day of execution of document Exh.66. This witness has not stated about the possession of suit property and some of the defendants in the Court premises. The signatures of these P.Ws. Appears to be a managed affairs there is corroboration of witness Imath Bux Exh.80 the document Exh.86 was written in presence of Allah Mahar Soomro and Hidayatullah. This fact is contradicted by witness in his cross-examination, he was brought by 3 peoples from shop at Mehro at Gambt and they reached at Gambat at 10-00 or 11-00 a.m. The evidence so adduced and on the basis of cross-examination that contradictory pleas have been taken by the witnesses in respect of the relevant time and presence of the parties in Court. The plea taken by the respondent No,4 appears to be reasonable that the signature of respondent No,4 were obtained by coercion method and by some torture and the said agreement was not executed by him with free-will as he was in custody of police on 18-12-1988, therefore, the finding of the. Trial Court appears to be reasonable as this sale agreement was not prepared and signed by them particularly by respondent No,4 as he was in police custody in a murder charge and view taken by the trial Court in respect of Exh.66 appears to be genuine. If the plea taken by the plaintiff is taken into consideration that the respondent No,4 after execution of sale agreement put the plaintiff in physical possession of the suit property in part performance of contract then the contradictory statements of witnesses regarding preparation of sale agreement may not be given but the respondent No,4 was arrested on 18-12-1988 at 15 O'Clock and the possession of suit land was taken over by the plaintiff forcibly with the connivance of S.H.O., Sobhodero.
15. In view of the circumstances and the evidence recorded by the parties the plaintiff has failed to prove their version about the sale agreement and the plaintiffs are admittedly in possession of the suit property it is without any legal authority as the whole structure has fallen down as the sale agreement made on 18-12-1988 With respondent No,4 A when he was in police custody in murder charge. I have examined the issues framed by the trial Court and I also concur the said view taken into consideration by the trial Court. It is settled law that burden of proving each issue is based upon the plaintiff but no tangible evidence was produced that the sale agreement was executed for the said land. It is surprising to state that defendant No,2 while submitting his written statement it was contended that said land is Government property and the defendant No,4 had no title over the suit land for entering into sale agreement the execution of Exh.66 is fabricated. The plaintiff has admitted in his statement Exh.65 that he has never informed that the suit land is the Government property and there is Revenue Record. As per record the defendant No,4 is agricultural land measuring about 2 acres and rest of Sikni plot belong to the Government and sketch of land was produced by defendant No,2 as Exh.69. This is also admission that 9 acres land was reserved for village Ashaish and there is entry in the Government record about the Government land. The plaintiff have failed to prove Issues Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 so far Issues Nos.7 and 8 are concerned and both are interconnected, therefore, both these issues were decided together by the trial Court. It has been held that the plaintiffs are unauthorized possession of the suit property whereas the Issue No,9 has been decided in affirmative on the ground that there is decree of Civil Court and unless it is set aside by the any competent Court the defendant No,4 is termed to be owner of agricultural land and Sikni land so far the finding of the trial Court in respect of Issue No,10 it is held that the plaintiffs themselves have admitted to be in possession of the property and availed the benefits of sugarcane crop and cultivating the other crops in the suit land the trial has rightly awarded the damages to the extent of Rs,50,000 and the trial Court has rightly granted mesne profit. The trial Court has disbelieved the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and find the same to be unreliable and it is rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. The findings of said Court do not suffer from any inherent defect or misreading of the evidence. The plea of Mr. Habibullah Shaikh learned counsel for the appellant that no additional issues were framed by the trial Court in respect of status of the land cannot be considered at this stage as this plea has not been taken at the trial Court and this ground for permitting the additional issue its relates to the Court of original jurisdiction and at this stage it cannot be considered to remand the case on this plea.
16. ' In view of the foregoing reasons there is no substance in the present appeals and consequently the same are dismissed.
17. Appeal dismissed.
18. 2002 CLC 1354 [Lahore] before Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J ANJUMAN-E-KHADMAN RASOOL "MASJID JAMIA HANFIA FAROOQIA"
19. GULISTAN COLONY, MUSTAFA ABAD, LAHORE through President of the Anjuman---Petitioner versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WITH POWERS OF RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE and another---Respondents Writ Petitions Nos.13236, 13237, 13238 and 13239 of 2001, heard on 24th October, 2001.
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----Ss. 13(2)(i) & 5---Ejectment of tenant---Default in payment of monthly rent---Enhancement in rent---Monthly rent of the premises was enhanced from Rs,175 to Rs,250 and the same had been tendered by the tenant---Landlord demanded Rs,500 per month as rent instead of Rs,250 as agreed between the parties---Tenant started paying agreed rent, firstly through money order and subsequently started depositing in the Court--Validity---No justification existed for the landlord to ask for enhancement in rent of Rs,500 per month instead of getting the agreed rent---No default thus, was committed by the tenant in circumstances. [p. 1359] A
(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S. 13(2)(vi)---Ejectment of tenant---Reconstruction, plea of-- Extension of mosque--- Principle---Where mosque has to be extended, the only way of getting vacation of the premises from tenant is to get the plan approved from local Authorities and then ejectment petition can be filed under S.13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. [p. 1360] B
(c) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S. 13(3)(a)(I-a)---Expression "own occupation" and "requires"--- Impact---For initiating proceedings under S.13(3)(a) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the emphasis is more on the words "own occupation" rather than on the word "requires"---Need of landlord should not always be present in the sense of constituting strictly individual and personal need but the premises may be needed for landlord or for his children and no other relation. [p.
20. 1360] C Muhammad Saeed v. Anjuman-e-Jamia Hanfia (Regd.) Al-Minar Mosque PLD 1982 Lah. 657 rel.
(d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S. 13---Ejectment of tenant---Ground of extension of the building---Scope---No provision exists in West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for ejectment of tenant on the ground of extension of the building. .[p. 1360] D
(e) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S. 13(2)(i)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenant---Default in monthly rent---Landlord demanded 100% increase in monthly rent and refused to accept the agreed enhancement in the rent---Tenant initially tendered the rent through money order and later on started depositing the same in the Court---Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition and passed the order of eviction of the tenant---Lower Appellate Court reversed the finding of Rent Controller on default and dismissed the petition--Validity--- Landlord had failed to prove the default against the tenant, and as no other ground for ejectment was available to the landlord, Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the ejectment petition---High Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Appellate Court. [p. 1361] E & F Muhammad Saeed v. Anjuman-e-Jamia Hanfia (Regd.) Al-Minar Mosque PLD 1982 Lah. 657 and Mst. Zulekha and 7 others v. Masjid-eMerajun Nabi Trust and 5 others 1984 CLC 3057 ref. Mian Javed Rashid and Mian Muhammad Tahir for Petitioner.
21. Sh. Afzaal Ahmed Qureshi and Zahid Iqbal Qureshi for Respondents.
22. Ms. Roshan Ara Begum, Asstt. A.-G. Date of hearing: 24th October, 2001.
23. JDUGMENT ' I intend to dispose of the following writ petitions through this consolidated order as same questions of law and facts are involved in all of them.
(1) Writ Petition No,13236 of 2001; (2) Writ Petition No,13237 of 2001; (3) Writ Petition No,13238 of 2001 and (4) Writ Petition No,13239 of 2001.
24. ' All titled Anjuman-e-Khadman Rasool Masjid Hanifa Farooqia through its President Ilyas Hussain v.
25. Additional District Judge/Rent Controller, Lahore and others.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given in the writ petitions, are that petitioner herein, Anjuman-e- Khadman Rasool "Masjid Jamia Hanfia Farooqia"; Gulistan Colony, Mustafabad, Lahore, through its President filed an ejectment petition against the respondents regarding ejectment of quarters attached with the mosque at Gulistan Colony, Street No,17, Mustafabad, Lahore on the grounds:--
(i) that the respondents are rent defaulter as they failed to deposit the rent since February, 1997; and
(ii) that the building of the mosque is not sufficient for the needs and requirements of the people of the locality and the petitioner was to expand the building of the mosque in the interest of public- atlarge and the same is required for personal bona fide use and occupation.
3. The petition was resisted by the private respondents by filing written reply. It was, inter alia, contended that the petitioner was not competent person to file the ejectment petition; the rate of rent is fixed which was regularly paid by the respondent and now the same is being deposited in the Court on refusal of the petitioner to receive the same. It was denied that there was any need to expand the building of the mosque in the interest of public-at-large. It was further contended in the written statement that the ejectment petition is mala fide, baseless, false and frivolous.
4. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller, Lahore framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the respondents failed to tender increased rent, despite having been given notice in this regard? OPA
(2) Whether the demised premises are bonafidely required to extension of the mosque? OPA
(3) Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file this petition? OPR
(4) Relief.
5. The learned Rent Controller decided Issues Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner while Issue No,3 was decided against the respondents and consequently passed the ejectment order, dated 28-6- 2000. It was observed by the learned Rent Controller, while deciding issue No,1 regarding default in payment or rent, as under:-- "Receipts produced by the respondents clearly show that the rent tendered by the respondents has not been deposited after its statutory increase and it is held in esteemed citation 1987 CLC 1658 that tenant would be ejected if he had not paid or tender rent after its statutory increase within 60 days."
26. ' On the personal need, the learned Rent Controller was of the view that the premises are bonafidely required for extension of the mosque. The appeal filed by the respondents against the order, dated 28-6-2000 was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 26-5-2001. Hence this writ petition.
6. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the issues of default and personal bona fide use were proved by the petitioner on the record by producing cogent evidence but the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction vested in her while accepting the appeal on the ground that the petitioner Anjuman is not a registered body and nothing in support of the same has been produced as documentary evidence. According to the learned counsel, the observation of the learned Additional District Judge that "the mosque and the said premises were built by the appellant on their own expenses on the ground owned by the Government" was irrelevant for the decision of the case since the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted between the parties.
7. On the other side, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the appeal has been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge who had the jurisdiction to decide the appeal, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He has further argued that no doubt the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted between the parties but the onus of proving that the respondents have committed default in payment of rent was on the petitioner which he has failed to prove on record. Finally, the learned counsel for the respondents has made much stress on the point that the ground of personal bona fide use and occupation was not available to the mosque and there is no evidence on the record that the premises in occupation of the present respondents is required in good faith for extension of the mosque.
8. The record attached with the writ petition has been examined by me with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The ejectment petition filed by the petitioner on 4-11-1999 does not show that any notice under section.5-A of the Ordinance for increase of rent to the extent of 25% qua each tenant was issued to the respondent/tenants. Though the notice, dated 25-3-1997 (Exh.A/1) was produced in evidence, yet the same does not find any mention about the increase in rent under section 5-A of the Ordinance. Even otherwise, notice Exh.A/1 regarding increase of 25% rent of each residential premises, in dispute, is not relevant for the purposes of deciding the ejectment petition. The amendment regarding increase of rent of non-residential building in the Rent Restriction Ordinance has been inserted by adding section 5-A by Act III of 1991 w,e,f, 16-3-1991.
27. ' Admittedly, the present respondents are not occupying the commercial premises and the ejectment petition was regarding ejectment of the tenants who are occupying the quarters of the mosque. The rate of Rent of Rs,175, 250 and 312 have been admitted by the respondents which is being paid.
28. ' It is in the ejectment petition of the petitioner that the rent was enhanced in February, 1994 and the above-stated rates were fixed. P.W.1 Ilyas Hussain has admitted that the rent till February, 1997 has been paid and the same was increased from Rs,175 to Rs,250 per month and he has refused to accept the same. He has stated that he had issued notice Exh.A./1 through which he demanded the rate of rent Rs,500 per month and on his refusal to receive the rent from the respondents they started depositing the same. He has admitted that the rent had been paid by the respondents till date, i,e, 2-4-1999. There are receipts on the file Exhs.R/1 to R/23 at pages 97 to 110 of the writ petition, which show that the respondents started paying rent at the rate of Rs,250 per month through money order from January, 1997 and thereafter it has been admitted by the petitioner, P.W., that the rent is being deposited by the respondent in Court. There was no legal justification for the petitioner to ask for the enhancement of rent of Rs,500 per month instead of getting the agreed rent. In this view of the matter, I have no option but to hold that there was no default on the part of the respondents.
29. ' This leads me to see the decision of the Issue No2, i,e, whether the premises can be got vacated for extension of the mosque. The provisions of sections 13(2)(vi) and 13(3)(a)(i) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance reads as follows:-- "13. Eviction of tenant.---
(1) .................................................................................................................................
(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that-- (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) .......................................................................................................
(vi) the building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for the reconstruction or erection of a building on the site and the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for the said reconstruction or erection from the Towh Improvement Trust, Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee or Town Committee for the area where such building or rented land is situated; 13(3)(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession--
(i) in the case of residential building, if--
(a) he requires it in good faith for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of, his children;"
30. ' Neither the President, namely, Ilyas Hussain or the Secretary of the Anjuman of the mosque has asserted in the ejectment petition that after vacation of the quarters the same will be occupied by them nor this could have been asserted under section 13(3)(a) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
31. Therefore, the quarters could have not been vacated for personal bona fide use and occupation. If the mosque was to be extended, in my view, the only way of getting the vacation of the quarters from the respondents was to get the plan approved from the local Authorities and then ejectment petition could have been filed under section 13(2)(vi) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance after getting the plan approved from the concerned Authorities. The petitioner Ilyas Hussain in his statement has stated that the plan was approved by the local Authority, but neither this ground was asserted by the petitioner in the ejectment petition nor the site plan has been produced on the record.
32. ' The property involved in the present case does not vest in a private individual nor the petitioner is its owner. This property belongs to the mosque and, therefore, the mosque is landlord in the instant case. In the provisions for initiating proceedings under section 13(3)(a), the emphasis is more on the words "own occupation" rather than on the word "requires". No doubt the "need" not always be present in the sense of constituting strictly individual and personal need, but it may be needed for landlord or for one's children and no other relation. In this background, I may make reference to a case reported as Muhammad Saeed v. Anjuman-e-Jamia Hanfia (Regd.) Al-Minar Mosque PLD 1982 Lah. 657 in which ejectment order was passed against the tenant on the ground of personal bona fide use and occupation because the disputed premises was needed by the mosque for setting up a library comprising of books on Islam. Admittedly, no such case has been set up in the pleadings by the petitioner. The existing residential quarters in occupation of the respondents may be required for the religious purposes of the mosque. Therefore, on the contrary, in this case, the petitioner has set up a case in its ejectment petition for extension of the mosque. Firstly, there is no provision in the Rent Restriction Ordinance for the extension of the building. The provision of law which could have been helpful to the petitioner was section 13(2)(vi) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, whereby the building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for the reconstruction or erection of a building on the site and the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for the said reconstruction or erection from the Town Improvement Trust, Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee or Town Committee for the area, for extension of the mosque. Admittedly the quarters are in occupation of the respondents and there will be structural change in the existing building. In case reported as Mst. Zulekha and 7 others v. Masjid-e-Merajun Nabi Trust and 5 others 1984 CLC 3057 the provisions of section 13(2)(vi) regarding bona fide requirement by landlord for construction of mosque was interpreted and it was held:-- "Trustees of property obtaining approval of plan from competent Authority for construction of mosque on disputed land---Requirement of land, held, reasonable and in good faith."
33. ' It was also observed that case of Muhammad Saeed v. Anjuman Jamian Hanfia PLD 1982 Lah. 657 which interpreted the provisions of section 13(3)(a) which is relatable to requirement of landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any of his children, is not applicable.
34. Since the petitioner has failed to, prove the issue of default against the respondents and no other ground for ejectment was available to the petitioner, in this view of the matter, there was no option for the learned Additional District Judge but to accept the appeal and dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner. However, if the ejectment petition is filed on legal grounds available to the petitioner for ejectment of the respondents this order will not preclude the Committee to pursue the matter of ejectment, which will be decided on its own merits under the provisions of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
35. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no force and the same is dismissed.