RASHID BROTHERS, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. -On respondents' ejectment application for ejecting the petitioner-firm from a shop situated in Goal Karyana Bazar, Faisalabad, the Rent Controller on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed as many as 5 issues of which only 3 are relevant, i.e, issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 :-

(1) Whether the present application is hit by the provision of section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ?

(2) Whether the respondent is a defaulter in payment of rent for the period in dispute ?

(3) Whether the property in dispute is bona fides required by the petitioner for reconstruction ?

2. The Rent Controller decided Issues Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the res pondents while issue No. 2 was found against them and it was held that there was no default in the payment of rent. The petitioner was, however, ordered to be ejected in view of the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 3 by the order of the Rent Controller dated 8th May, 1978. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order but the learned Addi tional District Judge not only upheld the findings of the Rent Controller on Issues Nos. 1 and 3 but also reversed his finding on Issue No. 2 and held that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent as well. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner then moved the Lahore High Court by a second appeal (S. A. O. No. 134/198) which, too, was dismissed vide order dated 5th March, 1980. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the plea that the shop is required for reconstruction by the landlord could not be given effect to ; firstly because it proceeded on the basis of the duly sanctioned plan by the Municipal Corporation which was sanctioned in 1964 and this sanction was valid only for one year, hence it could not be relied upon at this stage ; secondly, the respondent had got some other shops located in the building vacated on the same plea but they were let out to other tenants and not utilized for the purpose of recons truction. These pleas were advanced in the Courts below and had been adequately repelled. It was pointed out that the building in which the shop in dispute is located is a very old building which requires reconstruction. It consists of eight shops and until all shops are vacated for which the ejectment petitions are proceeding, the reconstruction cannot be commenced.

4. As for the plea that the sanction was valid only for one year it has been pointed out that to get sanction renewed is only a formality and it is not reasonable for the respondents-landlords to get sanction renewed every year during the pendency of the proceedings which have been going) on for the last many years.

5. As for the submission that the shops which had been got vacated had again let out, the High Court has not believed the evidence on this point but has preferred the evidence to the effect that the shops arc still lying vacant.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we got the impression that he desires us to re-appraise the evidence, which cannot be done in those proceedings. No point of law, however, was raised. Hence this petition must fail and is accordingly rejected hereby.

7. It is contended that the petitioners are doing business in the shop and some time may be granted to them to make alternative arrangement. The petitioners are, therefore, allowed four months' time to put respon dents in possession of the shop, provided they continue to pay monthly rent in accordance with law.

8. Petition dismissed.