Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeals Nos. 862 to 865 of 1983, decided on 16th October, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Reconstruction‑‑Renewal of sanction‑‑Renewal of sanction for reconstruction, held, was just a formality and it was not necessary for landlord to get sanction renewed every year during pendency of ejectment proceedings.

Rashid Brother, Faisalabad v. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan and others 1981 S C M R 782 rel.

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Reconstruction‑‑Personal use‑‑Landlord establishing by evidence that he required house in question after reconstruction for his and his family's living‑‑Nothing on record available to show that his contention was wrong‑‑Tenant ordered to vacate hbuse subject to renewal of approval of building plan.

Hassan Jaffer for Appellant.

Mahfoozul Haq for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th September, 1986.

This judgment will govern disposal of abovenoted four appeals filed by the tenants against four orders of the Controller allowing the landlord's eviction applications against the tenants who are tenants in the same building. In these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved.

The respondent filed four Eviction Applications under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the said Ordinance) on the ground of causing damage to the demised premises and thereby impaired the value and utility of the same and also on the ground that the respondent required the demised premises for reconstruction and erection of a new building at the site bearing No. 901, Block 5, Drigh Township, Karachi. The respondent averred in para. 4 of the eviction application that "the applicant requires the demised premises for reconstruction and erection of a new building at the site according to the approved plan. The applicant has thus obtained necessary sanction for such construction from the competent authority." The respondent also averred in para. 5 thereof that "the applicant himself is residing in a rented premises. He requires the demised premises for his own use and for the use and occupation of his children." The appellants filed written statement wherein they denied contents of paras. 3 and 4 of the eviction application.

The respondent filed his own affidavit‑in‑evidence besides affidavit‑in‑evidence of Muhammad Khan. In rebuttal the appellants filed their own affidavits‑in‑evidence besides affidavit‑in‑evidence of Muhammad Bux. The parties were cross‑examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

The Controller on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, decided issue No. 1 in the negative and issue No. 2 in the affirmative and allowed the eviction applications on the ground of bona fide requirement for the personal use and occupation of himself and that of his family after reconstruction vide orders, dated 31‑10‑1983 and directed the appellants to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in their possession to the respondent within one month from the date of the orders.

The appellants being aggrieved against the orders, dated 31‑10‑1983 have filed separate appeals on the grounds disclosed in the memo of appeals.

Mr. Hassan Jaffer the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the plea of construction raised by the respondent is fake and fictitious as at the time of filing the eviction applications the respondent had no sanction for such reconstruction. The learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that the demised premises being exclusively used for commercial purpose, cannot be got vacated by the respondent for the residential use.

On the other hand Mr. Mehfoozul Haq has submitted that the orders of the Controller are in accord with the evidence on record. He has also submitted that the plot on which the building was constructed, is a residential plot. He has further submitted that the mere lapse of the sanction plan is not a mala fide act.

Reverting to the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the sanction for reconstruction obtained by the respondent but expired during the pendency of the eviction applications, the respondent averred in para. 4 of the eviction applications that the respondent had obtained necessary sanction for reconstruction and erection of a new building. The respondent reiterated the same facts in his affidavit‑in‑evidence. The respondent produced copy of sanction for approval of plan as Exh. A/2. A perusal of the sanction shows that it was issued on 26‑3‑1979 and it was valid for a period of one year from the date of the sanction. It is an admitted position that the eviction applications were presented on 8‑7‑1980.

It is an admitted position that when the eviction applications were presented, the sanction was already lapsed. In Rashid Brother, Faisalabad v. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan and others 1981 S C M R 782 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "to get sanction renewed is only a formality and it is not reasonable for the respondents /landlords to get sanction renewed every year during the pendency of the proceedings which have been going on for the last many years."

The renewal of sanction is just a formality and it is not necessary for the landlord to get sanction renewed every year during the pendency A of proceedings going on for last six years. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of this case. The appellants have not led any evidence in rebuttal of the eviction adduced by the respondent on the point of reconstruction except bare denial by them in their depositions.

Reverting to the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent is trying to construct the house in place of shops (commercial) and, therefore, he is converting the premises from commercial to the residential one. It is an admitted position that the plot bearing No. 901, Block 5, Drigh Township, Karachi is a residential plot. There is no evidence on record to show that the plot is a commercial plot. In any case, in law there is no such bar as completed by the appellant.

The respondent deposed that "I am residing in a rented premises with my family and there is only one room in our possession. The same is insufficient and unsuitable for our residential requirements. There are seven family members in my family". In such a situation the respondent wanted to reconstruct a house after demolishing the disputed premises and also that he required it bona fide for his own occupation and that of his family.

It is evident that the respondent has established by evidence that he required the house in question after reconstruction this or his and his family living and there is nothing on record to show that statement is wrong.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed. The appellants shall vacate the premises C in question on or before 31‑1‑1987. However, if the approval of building plan is not revalidated or renewed within the above period, the appellants shall not be evicted till such time the respondent obtains valid sanction for reconstruction of the house from the competent authority.

In the peculiar circumstances, the partie would bear the respective costs of proceedings in this Court.

M. Y. H. /5150/K Appeal 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.