ZAKI AHMAD Versus Haji SATTAR

1. This First Rent Appeal has been Filed to challenge the order dated 5‑4‑1984 of X11th Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi whereby the rent application of the appellant was dismissed. A Rent Case No.1577 of 1980 was filed by the appellant on the ground of default, personal bona fide requirement and reconstruction. The written statement was filed and evidence was adduced by both the parties. The Rent Controller on pleadings of the parties framed the following three issues:‑

(1) Whether the respondent has committed/default in payment of rent?

(2) Whether appellants require the premises in good faith for the use of appellant No.2?

(3) Whether the appellants require the premises for reconstruction of a new building and have obtained necessary sanction from the competent authority?

2. Before the Rent Controller issue No.1 regarding default was not pressed by the appellants as such it was answered in negative. He decided issues No.2 and 3 against the landlord.

3. I have heard Mr.Iqbal Ahmed learned counsel for the appellant. He has t,6, not pressed issue No.2 regarding personal requirement but argued the case on the point of re‑construction. It is submitted that appellants have got the plan approved according to law but Rent Controller has wrongly dismissed his application on the ground that no objection certificate was taken from the Deputy Commissioner which is not the requirement of the law. It is contended by the learned counsel that appellants are prepared to make a provision for the respondent when new construction is raised. He has referred to the cases reported in 1980 SCMR 483, P L D 1987 S C 662 and 1985 S C M R 1090.

4. Mr.Mirza Abdul Rashid submitted that plans have not been approved in accordance with the provision of the Karachi Building Control Authority therefore, ejectment cannot be ordered on the ground of reconstruction until and unless approval is given by Deputy Commissioner. It is also argued that during the pendency of this appeal he also filed two Miscellaneous applications which are also fixed today.

5. It is also contended by Mr. Mirza that now a days KDA has suspended all the plans, therefore, appellant has no cause of action and thereafter cited a number of authorities on this point.

6. One of the appellant Zaki Ahmed in his affidavit in evidence produced the approved plan. The Rent Controller in his order rejected the plea of such approval on the ground that the plan was sanctioned subject to the approval of Deputy Commissioner south, therefore, sanction will be valid from the date of approval of Deputy Commissioner and tenant could only be ejected if necessary sanction is obtained from the competent authority i.e. Karachi Building Control Authority. The appellants have obtained necessary sanction and approval from the Master‑Plan Department from the K.D.A. for construction of building which has not been challenged. The only objection taken in the appeal as well as before the Rent Controller is that no‑objection certificate is to be required from the Deputy Commissioner and then construction could be started. There is no provision in the law with regard to no‑objection certificate from Deputy Commissioner. However, the requirement of the law is that only sanction plan of reconstruction of property to be produced. In case of Muhammad Akbar and another v. Muhammad Rafiq reported in 1980 S C M R 1938, it has been held that production of forwarding letter of municipal authority is not necessary. The production of sanction plan is the only requirement and this view has again been supported in case of 1987 S C M R 2074 where it has been held that copy of duly sanctioned plan of proposed building only is required to be produced. I am, therefore, of the view that case for reconstruction has been made out. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that half of the building has already been reconstructed and the work; in this portion has been held up because of this rent case. On this Mr.Iqbal Ahmad has produced copy of an order of this Court in F.RA. No.254 of 1983. Not only this but tenant has got sufficient protection in the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and in case he fails to demolish the building after the possession is handed over, the tenant is entitled to be put in possession of the premises and Rent Controller is also to determine reasonable requirement for the tenant in the new premises, as provided under section 15(4) of the Ordinance. I, therefore, allow the appeal on this ground and direct the Rent Controller to determine the requirement of the respondent in view of the provisions of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. Now I come to the applications filed by Mr.Mirza Abdul Rashid. The first application is C.MA. 1949 of 1987 in which d is stated that there is dispute about the property and such case is pending with the Chairman of Evacuee Trust Property Board and matter is sub‑judice. He has also produced the photostat copy of the order of Supreme Court in C.P. 10.139‑K of 1985. Mr.Mirza however, has not pressed this application on the ground that issue of personal bona fide requirement has not been pressed by the appellant. However, it may be mentioned that respondent is tenant of the appellants before partition and they were not the party in the proceeding before the Supreme Court or Evacuee Trust Property Board. This application is misconceived now. I come to the application C.MA. 531/87. It is stated that respondent is in occupation of area 45 X 20 feet and some shops of the appellants in newly constructed building are lying vacant and they are looking out for the tenants, therefore, he apprehends that this building will not be demolished. I have already stated that the interests of the tenants have been sufficiently safeguarded sufficiently safe‑guarded in the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, no further ‑ order is required m this application.

7. M.Y.H./Z‑49/K Appeal allowed.