TURNER SMITH & COMPANY Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT. JUDGE, LAHORE

AKHTAR HASSAN, J.‑‑ This writ petition arises from an order dated 11‑3‑1956 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the petitioner‑tenant's appeal from an order dated 11‑4‑1985 of the Rent Controller, Lahore directing his ejectment from the disputed premises.

2. The property was described in the petition as "business premises loosely called as workshop comprising three rooms, one shed and a courtyard including the land underneath and appurtenant thereto fitted with electrical energy situated at ."The petitioner's eviction was sought on the grounds of default and personal need. He resisted it among others on the ground that the premises being a workshop/Industrial unit was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The grounds for eviction viz. the default and personal need were as well denied.

3. Appropriate issues were framed. The Rent Controller allowed the petition repelling the contention that the premises constituted any factory so as to fall out of the purview of hi, jurisdiction.

4. The lower appellate Court, of course, agreed with his view and affirmed the order.

5. Mr. S.M.Masud for the writ petitioner primarily relied upon the contents of the ejectment petition as also some remarks of P.W. 3 in his testimony to the effect that the premises in dispute were either "workshop" or "factory" and hence the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He stressed that the forum to seek eviction of a tenant from such premises was a Civil Court and that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below were coram non judice. He relied heavily on P L D 1970 Lah. 455, for his view.

6. On the other hand Mian Saqib Nisar, counsel for the respondent argued that mere description of the premises at workshop would not by itself necessarily turn it into factory so as to take it out of purview of the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. He added that a factory would mean a place where already some machinery was installed for the purposes of manufacturing something and did not include a plot or site where the tenant himself installed such machinery for his own future purposes. According to him even mentioning the premises as workshop or factory in the agreement, would not by itself suffice. He sought support from Mistri Ahmad Hassan v. Abdul Rauf Khan and others 1986 SCMR 494 for this contention. According to him renting a plot or site without installing machinery would be a tenancy of either non‑residential building or the rented land falling within the competence of the Rent Controller for the purpose of ordering eviction. Muhammad Sharif v. Saeed Akhtar Hassan and 8 others P L D 1985 Lah. 365 (369) was claimed to bear out this proposition. He referred to the petitioner's statement as R.W. 1 wherein he statingly admitted that at the time of the agreement of tenancy, no machinery was installed at the spot, nor was given in the tenancy itself. This observation‑‑of none else than the petitioner himself, was shown to have clinched the matter unequivocally against him inasmuch as no machinery was installed at the site when the premises were let out. Likewise relying upon the respondent's own statement as P.W. 1 he stressed that his version was just the same as that of the petitioner namely, that an open site was let out without installation of any machinery. A huge number of authorities were shown to have laid down the rule that the nature of premises would not be turned into factory by any subsequent fixture of machinery if it was not installed at the time of the initial contract. Some of those authorities were P L D 1979 Lah. 673; P L D 1982 Lah. 39; P L D 1983 Lah. 674 P L D 1984 Lah. 179 and P L D 1976 SC 781.

7. No doubt in para. 1 of the ejectment petition, the premises were loosely described as workshop and again P.W. 3 in his testimony‑described them as factory, but the petitioner's own overture as R.W. 1 did not leave behind any room to doubt that there was no machinery installed at the time of his entry upon the premises, nor was any entrusted to him as a part of the tenement. Thus the petitioner's own admission detracts from his argument now raised in the writ petition. The description of the property here and there may have been inapt. It cannot be taken to be conclusive proof of the true nature or character of the property. The test was to see if any manufacturing process was already being carried out at the time of the contract. Anything proposed to be done in future on the part of the tenant would not alter the character of the premises. Applying this test one finds that the site in dispute, despite being shown as a shop was not a factory. It remained to be a non‑residential plot and quite amenable to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.

8. On this view of the matter I see no reason to differ with the findings of the Courts below. The writ petition is dismissed with costs.

A.A./T‑46/L

Petition dismissed.