Sh. MAULA BAKHSH AND Another vs FAZAL DIN AND ANOTHER
These two appeals by leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had dismissed the landlords' second appeals against the refusal of their eviction applications seeking tenants' ejectment on the ground of reconstruction. The High Court's finding was based on the premise that the property did not require demolition because the proposed first floor could be constructed on the existing foundations. The core legal questions involved whether a witness's statement was misread and whether the requirement of reconstruction depends strictly on the weakness of existing structures or the landlord's right to improve property, alongside a plea of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that landlords, as owners, possess the right to improve their property and utilize it profitably by erecting a new building, and the fact that existing foundations could support a new addition does not render the reconstruction unreasonable or lacking in good faith. The Court laid down the principle that an owner's right to reconstruct to improve property does not depend strictly on the dilapidated condition of the existing structure, provided good faith and statutory conditions are established, and allowed the appeals directing eviction.
- Whether the reconstruction of a building requires it to be dilapidated and weak in structure?
- Does the fact that existing foundations can support a proposed addition show unreasonableness or lack of good faith in seeking eviction for reconstruction?
- Does the dismissal of an earlier eviction petition operate as a bar under section 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 when there is a new cause of action and the matter was not finally adjudicated?
- Section 14, Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 13, Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
1. MUHAMMAD APZAL ZULLAH, J.-These two appeals by leave are directed against the judgment dated 11-2-1967 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby two second appeals filed by the landlords (appellants) arising out of the dismissal of their applications for eviction of their tenants (respondents) on the ground of reconstruction, were dismissed ; on the finding that the pro--perty in question need not be demolished for purposes of reconstruction as the intended first floor (chaubara) could be constructed on the existing founda--tions, walls and roof of the ground floor.
2. This finding of fact purported to have been based on the statement of Syed lrshad Husain one of the appel--lants' witnesses who under cross-examination had admitted that the first floor could stand on the existing foundations of the ground floor.
3. Leave was granted to examine the question as to whether the statement made by Irshad Husain was not misread in that he had admittedly not seen the building in question.
4. Relying on Haji Allah Ditta v. Mst. Shahzadi Bilqis and another1980 SCMR 4the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants being the owners, had the right to improve their property and to utilise it in the best and most profitable manner by erecting a new building if the old one is out--dated and for that matter it need not be dilapidated and weak in structure. He has also pressed the point regarding misreading of the statement of Irshad Husain.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, while agreeing that it would be difficult for him to controvert the propositions canvassed from the appellants' side, the respondents could nevertheless support the impugned judgment on any other legal ground available to them. He then urged that the appellants having moved earlier petition for eviction on the same ground (reconstruction) had failed ; because the sanctioned plan for reconstruction then submitted by them, was found to be lacking in legal requirements. Their applications were accordingly dismissed, this the learned counsel further argued, would operate as a bar on account of the principle of general res judicata contained in section 14 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
6. Similar plea was raised from the respondents' side (as constituting a good defence) before the learned Rent Controller which was repelled for the reason that the questions raised in the fresh petition was not finally decided in the earlier proceedings. It seems that the respondents did not raise this plea again during the first appeals before the District Court. Be that as it may, apart from the fact that the plea was not finally adjudicated in the earlier proceedings, after going through the pleadings, we feel that there was a new cause of action and that the bar of general res judicata or for that matter, A one in the provisions contained in section 14 of the Ordinance, was no attracted.
7. The legal objections having been raised from the respondents' side having been overruled, we reiterate the view taken by this Court in the case of Haji Allah Ditta and hold that even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the foundations of the existing building could support the first floor 'chaubara) proposed to be constructed by the appellants, this circumstance by itself, would neither show unreasonableness nor lack of good faith in so far as the requirement of reconstruction is concerned. The approach of the learned Courts below on this issue was not correct. Finding that the appel--lants having otherwise established the other conditions, as also, good faith and reasonableness, they were entitled to an order of eviction under section 13 of the Ordinance ; we accordingly allow their appeals and direct the eviction of the respondents- tenants/their successors-in-interest.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents sought time to vacate the shops and on his undertaking that if time is allowed, they would vacate the premises voluntarily and would also pay the rent, the learned counsel for the appel--lants has agreed. We accordingly allow two months' time on the condition of the undertaking/agreement by the learned counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.
Cited by 17 cases
- AZIZ UR REHMAN vs ATIQ UR REHMAN 2016 YLR 2411
- Mrs. ZAHIDA KHAN vs Mst. GULNAZ QURESHI through Attorney and another 2011 PLD Karachi 6
- Haji Abdul Rehman vs Khadim Hussain And 8 Other K.L.R. 2007 Criminal Cases 441
- Haji ABDUL REHMAN vs KHADIM HUSSAIN and 8 others 2007 P Cr. L J 1130
- MUHAMMAD ASER JAN vs BILQUIS BEGUM and 3 others 2010 YLR 1317
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Haji SHAISTA KHAN 2002 SCMR 480
- Haji MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BHATTI vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and 11 others 1998 MLD 894
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. LTD. and another 1995 PLD Karachi 214
- Sh. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KOHLI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, And OTHER 1989 CLC 49
- NAZIR AHMAD vs DR. M. A. REHMAN 1987 MLD 3046
- Ch. SAMI ULLAH vs 'MUHAMMAD ASHIQ ABDALI AND OTHERS 1985 PLD Lahore 483
- AMANULLAH KHAN vs Hafiz ABDUL GHAFFAR 1985 PLD Karachi 7
- MESSRS SERVICE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE AND ANOTHER vs MUNAWAR SULTANA 1984 CLC 3011
- Sh. NAZIR AHMAD And Another vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB 1986 PLC (C.S.) 774
- Syed AHMAD FAROOO And 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD ARIF Through L.Rs. And 3 1990 CLC 310
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL 2014 PLD 35
- FAYYAZ AKBAR Versus DELITE HOUSE LTD. 1988 PLD 76