ABDUL HAD alias ABDUL HADI HASAN AND 2 OTHERSs vs Syed ALI HAIDER AND OTHERS

ORDER

1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the above three petitions, the same are being disposed of by a common order.

2. ' The relevant facts are that the petitioners in these three petitions are occupying adjoining shop situated in Property No, P. 2713, Moti Basar inside Masti Gate, Lahore, owned by respondent No. 1. The said respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of reconstruction.

3. According to him, the building comprising the said shops was approximately hunderd years old and in a dilapidated condition and unfit for residential purposes; even the Lahore Municipal Corporation had declared the property to be unfit for residence; that he had already pulled down the superstructure of the building which consisted of the residential portion and the shops on the ground-floor only were now left to be demolished.

4. ' Along with the ejectment application, the landlord filed copies of the sanctioned reconstruction plan which did not show any shops therein and on the other hand showed that the reconstructed building would be wholly a residential building.

5. ' The contention raised before us is that a landlord who wishes to convert the shops into a residential building through reconstruction, cannot, in view of the provisions of section 13 (5-B), which lays down that where a landlord has obtained possession of a building on the ground of reconstruction of a building (referred to in the section as the old building), "the tenant who was evicted from the old building, may, before the completion of the new building and its occupation by another person, apply to the Controller for an order directing that he be put in possession of such area in the new building as does not exceed the area of the old building of which he was in occupation and the Controller shall make an order accordingly in respect of the area applied for or such smaller area, as considering the location and type of the new building and needs of the tenant, he deems just", get the tenants evicted from the shops of the old building. The argument is that as the petitioners were occupying the shops in the old building and the new building shall be a residential building, it will not be possible for them to obtain the possession of the area in the new building corresponding to what they were occupying in the old building in view of the fact that there will be no shops in the new building.

6. We are unable to agree. Section 13 (2) (vi) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance enables a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant if the building occupied by him is required for reconstruction and the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for it from the local authority competent to sanction 'the reconstruction. It is true that under section 13 (5-B), the tenant is entitled in case where the landlord has obtained the possession of a building on the ground of reconstruction to the possession of the area in the new building comparable to the one he was occupying in the old building and that he will be unable to exercise this option if the shops are converted into a residential building through reconstruction which makes no provisions for any shop. But this does not imply that because of this, the provisions of subsection (5-B) of section 13 are rendered nugatory. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that all parts of an enactment are to be read together and all parts thereof given 8 due effect and that effort must be made to harmonies the seemingly inconsistent provisions.

7. ' We observe that clause (vi) of subsection (2) of section 13 of the Ordinance also does not impose any restrictions or limitations as to that type of a new building may be built on the site of the old building, after reconstruction. We also note that there is no law which prevents a nonresidential building from being converted, after reconstruction, into a residential one. Consequently, if the contention raised by the petitioners was accepted and subsection (5-B) of section 13 was held to debar a landlord from making reconstruction, whereby shops could not be demolished and a residential building constructed on the site, this would amount to imposing a limitation which does not exist in law.

8. ' The reading of both the provisions in harmony would yield the result that subsection (5-B) of section 13 comes into play only where the old building consisting of shops even after reconstruction retains the character of shops and also in those cases where the old building is a residential building and new building on re-construction is again built as a residential building. This subsection would not apply in cases where a non-resinential building is, after re- construction, converted into a residential building.

9. ' In Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain this Court has already pointed out that the acceptance of the plea that shops cannot on reconstruction be converted into a residential building would result in preventing future development of the property, even though its environment and the requirements of the community at large may have changed. Similarly, in Ghulam Nabi v. Mushtaq Ahmad it was pointed out that "whilst a landlord cannot evict his tenant except on the grounds prescribe'd in the said Ordinance, a tenant is free to vacate the demised premises after giving the contractual or statutory notice. As a tenant can terminate his lease unilaterally, it would be extremely unjust and unreasonable if the landlord's right to rebuild and develop his property was subject to the tenant's veto, and injustice is not to be lightly attributed to the Legislature". In the instant case as the reconstruction in the building sought to be made by the landlord is to substantially develop and improved the property the landlord's requirement must be held to be bona fide and reasonable.

10. ' The writ petition filed by the tenants having been rightly dismissed by the High Court these petitions for leave to appeal, directed against the said orders, must also fail and are dismissed hereby.1 2