Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.69‑R of 1985, decided on 11th December, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, dated 20‑11‑1984 in F. R . A . No. 714 of 1983) .

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15 (2)(vi)‑‑Karachi Building Control Regulation, 1984‑‑Ejectment‑ Requirement for reconstruction‑‑Suspension of permission for construction‑‑Imposition of conditions on landlord‑ ‑Ejectment order passed subject to condition that landlord obtains valid building plan from Authority or suspension was withdrawn‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions: (i) that imposition of said condition was beyond scope of provisions of Ordinance (XVII of 1979) and right of ejectment could not be legally curtailed, and (ii) although High Court had refused to go into question of validity of Karachi Building Control Regulation, 1984, yet a finding was recorded that Authority could impose conditions on landlord like one directing him to enter into agreement with tenants.

Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Abu Bakar Chundrigar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th December, 1985.

‑The petitioners, who are the owners of land situate of Dundas Street, Saddar Karachi, applied to the Rent Controller for ejectment of the respondent on 24‑8‑1983 on the ground of requirement of the demised premises for the purpose of reconstruction of the building at the site after demolition of the existing structure. It was stated that necessary sanction and approved plan had been obtained by them from the competent authority.

2. The application was contested by the respondent and the following issue was framed in the case:‑

Whether the applicants require the disputed shop in good faith for reconstruction and have obtained necessary sanction from the competent authority "

After the evidence of the parties was completed, the respondent applied on 23‑7‑1983 for summoning the Building Control Authority (hereafter referred to as "Authority") for production of a letter suspending the building plan. Such letter, dated 1‑6‑1.983, was later produced by the petitioners themselves with their counter affidavit and it was stated that the Authority, after having twice renewed the plan, 'had suspended the same by a letter, dated 1‑6‑1983 till such period that an agreement was executed with the tenants. The respondent thereafter, filed copy of a circular of the Karachi Development Authority, dated 3‑12‑1983 containing the resolution of the Governing Body which provided that no permission for reconstruction of a building on a plot should be accorded by the Authority with existing structure under occupation by tenants unless an agreement was arrived at between the landlord and the tenant for alternate accommodation or mutually agreed compensation. It further said that any permission if granted already was also to stand suspended provided no physical construction had been started at the site. The said Regulation, known as the Karachi Building Controller Regulation, 1984, was issued under section 21(A) of the Sind Building Control Ordinance No. V of 1979.

3. The learned High Court, however, found. that mere suspension of building plan did not amount to cancellation or revocation and dismissed the appeal as per impugned judgment, dated 20‑11‑1984. The respondent was directed to vacate the premises within two months subject to the condition that if a no objection certificate was not issued and approval of building plan was not revalidated or suspension was not withdrawn within the said period, the respondent was not to be vacated till such time the petitioner had obtained a valid building plan from the Authority.

4. It was inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the above condition was beyond the scope of the provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and the right of ejectment could not be legally curtailed. It was further contended that although the learned High Court had refused to go into the question of the validity of the Regulation yet a finding was recorded that the Authority could impose conditions on the landlord like the one referred to above namely, directing the landlord to enter into agreement with the tenants. .

The contentions raised above require examination and leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,500.

M. I. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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