Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal No. 89 of 1979, decided on 22nd March, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 13 & 15(4)‑Ejectment ‑ Reconstruction ‑ Building very old‑Approval of plan for reconstruction obtained by landlord from municipality‑.Economic reason for getting more rent after demolition and reconstruction‑‑Landlord promising to rent out shop to tenant after reconstruction‑Ejectment ordered by High Court with direction that landlord will band over possession of shop to tenant after reconstruction within period fixed by High Court.

Nooruddin N. Ramzan for Appellant.

Ahsan Ali T. Khawaja for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 14th March, 1983.

This is a second rent appeal. Rent Application No. 8 of 1977 was filed by the appellant/landlord for ejectment of the respondent/tenant on the ground of default, personal requirement of the shop in question and for reconstruction of the shop. The learned Rent Controller, by his order, dated 30th April, 1978, rejected the grounds of default as well as personal requirement but granted the ejectment application on the ground that the appellant required the shop for reconstruction and that he had produced the copy of, the sanction order and plan. The respondent, being aggrieved, filed rent appeal, which was allowed by order, dated 20^th January, 1979 of the learned District Judge, Badin and the ejectment application of the appellant was dismissed. This order dated 20^th January, 1979 has been impugned in the present second appeal filed by the appellant/landlord. I have heard Mr. Nooruddin N. Ramzan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ahsan Ali T, Khawaja, learned counsel for the respondent.

2 The main consideration for dismissing the ejectmeut application in first rent appeal by the learned District Judge, was that. "It is not left at the whims and caprices of the landlord to shape the building on any lines terminating the statutory tenancy at his will. Hence the plan and order of approving and sanctioning the plan by the Administrator Badin Municipality are of no use to respondent/applicant." In the instant case evidence has come on record that the building is very old and the appellant/landlord wanting to demolish the old structure and then reconstruct a new building, had obtained the approval and sanction of the plan by the Administrator, Badin Municipality. Economic reasons that is for getting more rent by constructing a new building, after demolition of the old building, is a valid ground for approaching the Rent Controller under the 1959 Ordinance for the tenant's eviction if there are no other circumstances/facts indicating the mala fides of the tenant. It is an admitted position, as observed earlier, that the sanction and approval of the plan had been obtained. In my view, on the basis of the evidence on record the first Appellate Authority ought not to have set aside the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the appellant on the instructions of the appellant, who was present in person, stated that after demolition, one shop only will be constructed on the ground floor, which shop the appellant is ready to rent out to the respondent on such rent as may be fixed by the Rent Controller. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions that from the date of getting possession of the property in question. The 6 months thereof the building will be reconstructed after demolition.

3. Second Appeal No. 89 of 1979 is allowed with no order as to costs. The result is that the order, dated 20th January, 1979 of the learned District Judge, Badin, in Rent Appeal No. 24 of 1978 is se aside and the order, dated 30th April, 1978 of the Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Badin in Rent Case No. 8 of 1977 is restored. The under taking given on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. It is directed that vacant possession of the shop in question will be delivered by the respondent to the appellant on or before 3oth June, 1983 and the appellant will, after demolition of the present structure, reconstruct the building according to the approved plans within a period of 6 months from the date he received possession of the present shop in question. Immediately prior to the completion of the new building, the appellant will give notice to the respondent by registered post through Mr. Ahsan Ali T. Khawaja, Advocate, informing that the building will be completed on the date specified in the notice and asking the respondent to take delivery of possession of the reconstructed ground floor shop. The possession of the reconstructed shop will be taken within two months of the notice being received by Mr. Ahsan Ali T. Khawaja, Advocate, failing which the respondent will lose his right to get the possession of the reconstructed shop. If possession of the shop is taken over by the respondent, the rent will be either such as may be mutually agreed between the parties or if no agreement is reached, rent for the new shop will be, determined by the Rent Controller on an application moved in that regard by the respondent before relevant Rent Controller.

M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.