Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.23 of 1984, decided on 18th March, 1984.

‑‑‑S 15(2)(vi)‑‑Reconstruction of house‑‑Proof‑‑Landlord produced sufficient evidence to establish that he had applied for loan for reconstruction of house in dispute‑‑Landlord, a Government servan and was about to retire and wanted to reconstruct said house for hi; own use‑‑Landlord, held, had established his plea of reconstruction of house in circumstances.

‑‑S. 15 (2)(vi)(vii)‑‑Personal bona fide need‑‑Reconstruction of house‑ Plea of‑‑Proof‑‑Contention that plea of personal bona fide requirement of landlord could not be accepted as landlord did not appear before Rent Controller‑‑Held: Attorney of landlord was examined and even i1 contentior by tenant might be considered sufficient for setting aside finding on that issue, landlord, had established his plea for reconstruction of premises in circumstances.

Raja Khan for Appellant.

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Controller whereby the ejectment has been granted in respect shop premises occupied by the appellant as a tenant. The respondent gad filed ejectment application on the ground of default in payment of rent, reconstruction and personal bona fide use and occupation. The rest ground relating to default has not been pressed. However, the learned Controller on assessment of evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent wants to reconstruct a house after demolishing the disputed premises and also that he requires it bona fide for his own occupation. Mr. Raja, the learned counsel contended that the respondent did not file the original plan duly sanctioned by the Municipal Authority and had annexed a photo copy of the plan with the affidavit of evidence which is not admissible in law. Therefore, there was no validly sanctioned plan before the Controller on the basis of which ejectment could be granted. With his affidavit of evidence the respondent had filed photo copy of the sanctioned plan and stated that he wants to reconstruct a building for which plan has been approved. The appellant did not challenge this statement nor raised any objection to the admissibility of this photo copy at any stage. In these circumstances at this late stage he cannot raise this objection.

The next contention of the appellant's counsel is that the respondent is trying to reconstruct the house in place of shop and, therefore, he is converting the premises from business premises to a residential one. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied on PLD 1979 Lah. 398 but as that case relates to the provisions of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which materially differs from Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, it is not applicable. In law, there is no such bar as contemplated by the appellant.

In any event the respondent has produced sufficient evidences to establish that he has applied for a loan of Rs. one lac for reconstruction of the premises. His attorney has further stated that A the respondent is a Government servant and is about to retire and he

wants to make this house for his own use.

The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the respondent did not appear before the Controller and, therefore, his plea for bona fide personal requirement cannot be accepted. The attorney of the respondent was examined and even if this objection may be considered sufficient for setting aside the finding on this issue. the respondent has established that he wants to reconstruct the house B after demolishing the disputed premises. In these circumstances, I find that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine. The appellant shall vacate the premises within three months.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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