Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petitions Nos. 217-K and 218-K of 1986, decided on 24th June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 4-3-1986 passed in first Rent Appeals Nos. 396 and 397 of 1982)
---Art. 185(3)--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 15--Eviction of tenant--Bona fide personal requirement of landlord for reconstruction/ erection of building--Building plan approved--Compulsory open space provided in plan as per building rules--Disputed premises falling in such open space--Contention that construction of proposed building could be carried out without demolishing tenanted premises, held, was not sustainable--Approved plan covered entire area of plot and specified space was compulsorily required to be left open under building bye-laws--Such open space as provided in building plan was part of overall layout of proposed building and no construction could be allowed without compliance of such requirement--Findings of High Court being based on sound reasoning were unexceptionable--Leave to appeal refused.
Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 24th June, 1986.
This order will dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal as the same arises out of a common judgment of the High Court, involve similar facts and law points and the respondent /landlady is the same.
2. The respondent /landlady applied for ejectment of the petitioners from the disputed premises on the ground that the same were required by her reasonably and in good faith for reconstruction /erection of a new building at the site. The application was supported by building plan approved by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. The application was opposed by the petitioners, inter alia, on the allegations of mala fides and harassment. On the pleadings of the parties the only issue framed in the case was whether the disputed premises were required by the respondent in good faith for reconstruction and whether she had obtained necessary permission in this regard. The issue was decided by the learned Rent Controller in the affirmative on the basis of the evidence brought on the record and an order of ejectment, on identical terms, was passed on 11-3-1982. The petitioners having appealed unsuccessfully against the said order in the High Court have now come up to this Court seeking leave to appeal.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as was done before the High Court, that the disputed premises were situate in the compulsory open space of 22 feet and the approved plan did not cover the same. The construction of the proposed building, therefore, could be carried out without the removal of the premises of the petitioners. The argument, though somewhat novel, has no force. The approval of the building plan covers the entire area of the plot and certain spaces are compulsory required to be left open as required by building rules and bye-laws. Allowance of compulsory open spaces as per approved plan, therefore, is part of the overall layout of the proposed construction to be erected at the site and the same are integral part of the sanction and no construction can be raised without compliance of such requirement. The findings of the learned High Court is in accord with the above reasoning and is unexceptionable.
The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer