Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1 of 1984, decided on 10th April, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 13‑11‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 3023 of 1983).

‑‑ S. 13(2)(vi) ‑ Word "reconstruction" to be given a pragmatic connotation and meaning in the conditions in S. 13(2) (vi) namely, reasonableness and good faith‑‑"Reconstruction" for which a tenant could be ejected under S. 13(2) (vi)‑Held, it was not necessary in every case for landlord to prove demolition of entire building and to rebuild new one in order to succeed in eviction of tenant‑"Reconstruction" should relate to substantial part and question whether or not it was substantial would depend on circumstances of each case‑Aspects to be taken into account as stated in Akhtar Sultana v. Abdur Rauf Nagi P L D 1978 Lah. 347 approved.‑--[Words and phrases].

Percy E. Cadle Co. Ltd. v. Joomarch Properties Ltd. 1957 All E L R 148 approved.

Mst. Akhtar Saltana v. Abdur Rauf Nagi P L D 1978 Lah. 347 ref.

‑‑‑ S. 13(2) (vi)‑"Reconstruction" for which a tenant could be ejected under S. 12(2) (vi)‑Reconstruction of building on same foundation, held, substantial in nature‑Removal of some of wails and raising some new ones, five shops converted into .a big hall with kitchen and pantry which could be used as restaurant‑Tenants, held further, could be ejected on plea of "reconstruction" within meaning of S. 13(2) (vi) in circumstances.

Khan Muhammad Younus Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court, and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing ; 10th April, 1984.

Mst. Khurshid Jahan, respondent No. 1, a land lady of a building comprising 5 shops situated in Satellite Town, Gujran wala, filed an application for ejectment against all the five tenants who Were occupying the said shops on the ground that she required the building in good faith for "reconstruction" of the building on the site having obtained the necessary sanction from the relevant Municipal Committee for the aforesaid "reconstruction" of the building as a restaurant for the use of her sons.

The petitioners, as well as the other tenants, contested the application but the learned Rent Controller upheld the plea of respondent and passed an order of ejectment, in favour of the respondent No. 1 and against the petitioners, as also the other tenants of the shops. The other tenants appeared to have accepted the said order and vacated the shops, but the petitioners contested its correctness and filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Gujranwala, who agreeing with the finding of the Rent Controller dismissed the appeal. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which, too, was dismissed. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the ejectment of a tenant can be sought under section 13(2) (vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, on the ground of reconstruction, namely, where complete demolition of the existing building and the construction of a totally new one in its place is sought to be effected.

The learned Judge in the High Court, after considering the above conten tion, as also the judgments cited before him, namely, Percy E. Cadle & Co. Ltd. v. Joomarch Properties Ltd. (1957 All E L. R 148) and Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Dr. Abdur Rauf Nagi (P L D 1978 Lah. 347), did not agree with the contention to the effect that term "reconstruction" employed in the Ordinance implies a complete domolition of the existing building and the construction of a new building in its place but found that where a change of a substantial character in the existing building was being affected, this would fall within the purview of the word "reconstruction".

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length and examining the original record, which was summoned specially from the trial Court for examining the original plan as approved by the Municipal Committee with a view to assessing the nature of the alterations being effected, we are satisfied that the landlord had made out a case of reconstruction' of the property, within the meaning of section 13(2) (vi) of the Ordinance.

The meaning and scope of the word "reconstruction", for which a tenant can be ejected under section 13(2) (vi) of the Ordinance has been discussed elaborately in the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Abdur Rauf Nagi, which was r lied upon in the impugned order of the High Court in this case and we agree with connotation of the word "reconstruction given therein.

As the reconstruction proposed to be made in the present case, Though on the same foundations, is substantial in nature inasmuch as by removing some of the walls and raising some new ones, the five shall be converted into a big hall with 'a kitchen and pantry, which can be used as a restaurant; the tenants were, therefore, liable to be ejected on the plea of reconstruction' within the meaning of section 13 (2) (vi) of the above said Ordinance.

This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.

The respondent No. 1, however, will not execute the order of ejectment for another period of two months provided the petitioners continue to pay the monthly rent.

M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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