Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeals Nos. 300 and 305 of 1985, heard on 10th November, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 15 (2)(vi)(3)(4)‑‑Eviction on ground of reconstruction‑‑Conversion of commercial building into residential one‑‑Effect‑‑Landlord would be entitled to convert his commercial building into residential one ‑in case landlord by way of reconstruction had converted his commercial building into residential one, such landlord, held, would not be bound to provide to tenant shop from his house‑‑Condition to provide shop to tenant could only be imposed on landlord if he had reconstructed commercial type of building.

P L D 1983 S C 342ref.

‑‑‑S. 15(2)(vi)‑‑Reconstruction of building‑‑Proof‑‑Where copy of approved building plan in support of plea of reconstruction of disputed premises was produced by landlord alongwith his eviction application, his failure to file copy of such approved plan alongwith his affidavit‑in evidence, held, could not materially affect result of case.

‑‑‑Ss. 15(2)(vii) & 21(1)‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑Proof‑ Findings on point of personal bona fide requirement of landlord in respect of premises in dispute arrived at by Rent Controller being based on circumstances of case and not appearing to be arbitrary or unreasonable, held, would not call for interference.

‑‑‑S. 15(2)(vi)(3) &, (4)‑‑Reconstruction of building‑‑Right of tenant‑ where building was got vacated by landlord on ground of reconstruction of same, existing tenant, after reconstruction of such building, held, could apply to Rent Controller, for order directing landlord to provide similar accommodation to tenant in same building which tenant was in possession before reconstruction‑‑Rent Controller has ample discretion to pass appropriate order on such application of tenant in accordance with law.

Khuda Bux Umrani for Appellant.

K.M. Nadeem for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 10th November, 1986.

This judgment disposes of First Rent Appeal No. 300 of 1985 and First Rent Appeal No. 305 of 1985, the respondent being common in both these appeals.

The facts giving rise to First Rent Appeal No. 300 of‑1985 are, that the appellant was the respondent's tenant in respect of a shop situated in Premises No.l/521‑A, Liaquatabad, Karachi at a monthly rent of Rs.200. The respondent filed Eviction Application bearing No. 3407 of 1982 against the appellant on various grounds, including re‑construction of the building and personal use. After recording evidence, the learned Controller came to the conclusion that both the grounds had been established and consequently, ordered eviction of the appellant from the premises. The facts of First Rent Appeal No. 305 of 1985 are also more or less similar, except that in the application (R.C. No. 3408 of 1982), the plea of personal requirement had not beer taken by the respondent and that the rent of the premises was Rs.25a per month.

I have heard Mr. Khuda Bux Umrani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.M. Nadeem, learned counsel for the respondent.

The contention of Mr. Umrani, learned counsel for the appellant in the two appeals is, that the respondent had failed to file a copy of the approved plan alongwith his affidavit filed by him in evidence. However, it is not being contested that a photostat copy of such plan had been filed by the respondent along with his eviction application as Annexure 'B'. Besides this the learned counsel for the appellant has also raised objection to certain observations made by the learned Controller in the impugned orders. The observations in Case No. 3047 of 1982 are as under:

"As already stated in the above authority of Supreme court PLD 1983 S C 342 the landlord has got a right to convert his commercial building into residential building by way of re construction. The landlord will not be bound to provide to the tenant a shop from his house. Even otherwise it is not the requirement of law that the landlord should get an agreement of tenant. In this case it is not practicable for the applicant to provide the shop to the opponent after re‑construction of building. This condition could be imposed upon applicant landlord if he reconstructs the same type of premises. In these circumstances the applicant will not be obliged to provide any shop to the opponent tenant after its reconstruction."

Similar observations can also be found in the order of the learned Controller in Case No. 3408 of 1982.

It appears that both the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are devoid of force. Although it is true that the respondent had failed to file a copy of the approved plan alongwith his affidavit‑in‑evidence as stated by him therein, but such copy had already been filed by him alongwith his eviction application. Therefore, the omission, if any, could not have materially affected the result of the case. However, Mr. K.M. Nadeem has stated as had been stated by the respondent in his affidavit, he did bring the original approved plan at the time of his cross‑examination, but he was not asked by the appellant to produce the same, which means that the same was not called in question by the appellant. However, whatever be the case, no other convincing argument has been advanced by Mr. Umrani in this regard.

The next attack of Mr. Umrani is in regard to the plea of personal requirement raised by the respondent. In this respect the contention of Mr. Umrani has been that the respondent has failed to establish that the accommodation shown in the proposed plan consisting of eight bedrooms was actually required by the respondent According to the impugned order, the reasons which prevailed with the learned Controller were that the respondent 's family consisted of twelve members and the existing accommodation which consisted of only three rooms, was not sufficient to accommodate such large family of twelve members. After going through the impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Controller on the points which do not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable, keeping in view of the circumstances of the case.

Turning to the last contention of Mr. Umrani, the grievance of the learned counsel is, that the observations made in the impugned order to the effect that the landlord would not be obliged to provide any shop to the appellants after re‑construction of the premises, were likely to cause prejudice to the appellants. This contention also seems to be misconceived as according to section 15(4) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, after reconstruction of the building the Tenant can D apply to the Controller for an order, directing the landlord to provide similar accomodation to the tenant in the same building and the Controller has ample discretion to pass an appropriate order under the snid provision. This being a statutory right of the tenant, the appellants can always file such an application before the learned Controller after re‑construction of the building in question. I therefore, do not agree that the observations made by the learned Controller can in any way prejudice their right to make such an application before the learned Controller if and when the necessity for the same arises.

For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any force in the two appeals, and they are dismissed. Since the demised premises are being used for commercial purposes, the appellants are allowed four months' time within which they shall put the respondent in possession of the premises. In case the appellants fail to do so, the execution shall automatically follow without any further notice to the appellants. There will be no order as to costs.

H.B.T./5161/K Appeals 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.