MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND ANOTHER vs DR. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE ETC.

ORDER

1. ' ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This order will dispose of civil petitions for Special Leave to Appeal bearing Nos. 326 and 327 of 1979, which proceed on identical facts.

2. ' The petitioners in both cases are tenants under the respondents in respect of a building site on which he had put up certain structures. The landlords applied to the Rent Controller for their ejectment on the ground of default in the payment of rent, subletting and personal requirement.

3. During the pendency of the applications the landlords' plan for construction of a building on the land in dispute was sanctioned by the Municipal authority concerned, whereupon they moved for an amendment in the ejectment applications so as to include this additional ground. The amendment was allowed in both the cases by the learned Rent Controller.

4. ' Both the applications were accepted by the Rent Controller on the grounds of personal use and construction by his orders dated the 21st of May, 1975. However, this decision was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, in appeal on the 20th of April, 1977. Thereupon the landlords filed second appeals in the High Court which have been accepted by a learned Judge by his orders dated the 7th of March, 1979. The petitioners, accordingly, seek leave to appeal.

5. ' The main ground urged by Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, appearing for both the petitioners, is that plea of reconstruction of the property was raised by the landlords at a belated stage in proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, and should not, therefore, have been allowed ; and that, in any case, the plan of reconstruction proved on the record was not accompanied by any sanctioning letter issued by the Municipal Corporation or Lahore Development Authority, with the result that it could not be treated as being a properly sanctioned plan within the meaning of the law.

6. We regret we see no merit in these submissions. The ejectment applications were made on the 29th of July, 1972, and the applications for amendment therein were made on the 2nd of January, 1973. And the ejectment petitions were not decided by the learned Rent Controller until the 21st of May, 1975. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the prayer of amendment was made at a belated stage.

7. ' The requirement of the law is that there should be sanctioned plan of construction or reconstruction of the property, and it is therefore, immaterial whether the forwarding letter of the Municipal authority concerned is produced or not, if the Court is satisfied that the plan produced is, indeed, a sanctioned plan as required by law. None of the three Courts, which have dealt with the case, have doubted the genuineness of the sanctioned plan. The learned Additional District Judge, who decided the matter against the landlords, proceeded on the basis that the plan had been sanctioned during the pendency of the ejectment petitions and that one of the landlords, named Mohammad Bashir was already residing in rented house. In other words even he did not doubt the genuineness of the sanctioned plan. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the submission that the sanctioned plan was not duly proved on the record.

8. ' The petition is accordingly dismissed.