MUHAMMAD PANJAL vs Syed NISAR AHMED Through His Legal Heirs
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which affirmed an order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the petitioner from shop premises on the grounds of reconstruction. The core legal question was whether the respondent's ejectment application, filed in 1981, was invalidated by the petitioner's subsequent argument regarding non-compliance with Section 6-A of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1982, which was introduced in 1982. The Supreme Court held that the amendment introducing Section 6-A was not retrospective and did not nullify the approval of the construction plan or the sanction already granted by the relevant authority prior to the amendment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding the contention meritless, particularly as it had not been raised before the High Court. The Court granted the petitioner three months to vacate the premises upon a voluntary undertaking to surrender possession without execution proceedings.
- Does the amendment introducing Section 6-A of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1982, have retrospective effect on pending ejectment proceedings?
- Can a party raise a new legal contention in the Supreme Court that was not raised before the High Court?
- Is a landlord required to comply with Section 6-A of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1982, for an ejectment application filed prior to the enactment of that section?
- Section 15, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 15(2)(iv), Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 6-A, Sind Building Control Ordinance 1982
- Section 5, Sind Building Control Ordinance 1982
- Section 6, Sind Building Control Ordinance 1982
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This petition arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Sind, Sukkur Bench Sukkur, dated 3-4-1984 dismissing the First Rent Appeal of the petitioner.
2. The respondent Syed Nisar Ahmed, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, applied for the ejectment of the petitioner under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground of reconstruction of the disputed shop premises situated in Resham Gali, Larkans which was granted on 25-5-1983 by the Rent Controller. Petitioner's First Rent Appeal against the said order was dismissed and the finding of the Rent Controller was affirmed as per impugned judgment.
3. It was concurrently held that the respondents had made compliance of the provisions of section 15(2)(iv) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance as he bad produced an approved plan of construction by the relevant authority and the necessary sanction in this behalf .
4. The only contention raised in support of the petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent had failed to comply with the requirement of section 6-A of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1982. The said section which is reproduced hereunder, was introduced in the Ordinance by way of an amendment made on 6th March, 1982 whereas the application for ejectment was filed much earlier on 21-4-1981. The said section is as under:- "6-A. Information for non-objection certificate.-- A builder or developer shall for the purpose of obtaining non-objection certificate under section 5 or as the case may be, under section 6 furnish full and true information as to the following duly attested in the manner as may be prescribed--
(a) his own title, and title or interest of any other person are any encumbrance such as mortgage or lease or licence in respect of the land on which a building is to be constructed or which is to be developed into plots;
(b) plans, specifications, designs, and materials to be used, asapproved by the Authority;
(c) all money payable under any law for the the being in force in respect of the building or plot as the case may be which may include taxes, ground rent, revenue assessment, electricity and water charges; (d)such other information and documents as may be specified by the Authority."
5. The above amendment is not retrospective and did not have the effect of nullifying the approval of the plan and the sanction already accorded for construction by the relevant authority.
6. The above contention was not raised before the High Court, which has otherwise, no merit and the petition, is, therefore, dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner requests that since the dispute relates to shop premises, some the may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the same. Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate-on---Record for the respondent, has agreed to allow three months the upon an undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner will voluntarily vacate the premises without recourse to execution proceedings or any notice on or before the expiry of the period of three months.