Messrs DELITE HOUSE LTD. vs FAYYAZ AKBAR
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding an ejectment order passed by the Cantonment Rent Controller. The sole ground for eviction was the reconstruction of the front portion of the main building based on sanctioned plans and established financial capacity of the landlord. The core legal questions involved whether the Rent Controller became functus officio after consigning the proceedings to the record temporarily, whether the expiration of the building plan's sanction period during prolonged proceedings vitiates the application, and whether the landlord's eviction request was tainted with mala fides. The Supreme Court held that the temporary consignment of proceedings did not render the Rent Controller functus officio as the revival was pursuant to the original order, that the expiration of the building plan sanction due to prolonged litigation does not affect the merits of the ejectment application, and that the concurrent findings on good faith and absence of mala fides were unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that procedural consignment of a temporary nature and subsequent expiration of a building plan during delayed proceedings do not invalidate a bona fide ejectment application for reconstruction.
- Does a temporary consignment of proceedings to the record render the Rent Controller functus officio?
- Whether the expiration of a building plan's sanction period during prolonged litigation affects the merits of an ejectment application for reconstruction?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide intention for reconstruction be interfered with lightly?
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The Petitioner, a tenant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 5-4-1988 whereby a first Appeal filed by him against an Order of ejectment passed by the Cantonment Rent Controller was dismissed.
2. The sole ground on which the eviction of the petitioner was sought was reconstruction of the front portion of the main building for which plans had been got sanctioned. The Controller allowed the application holding as hereunder:- "Based on the evidence it is established that the petitioner wants to reconstruct and develop the suit property for which he had got sufficient funds. The earlier ejectment petitions filed on different grounds do not have significant bearing on this application. The plea of reconstruction by the petitioner has also been admitted by the respondent and further proves his bona fides."
3. The High Court by the impugned order upheld the ejectment concluding on merits as hereunder:- "There is no reason to doubt the statement of the landlord made on oath. From his testimony it manifestly appears that he has unequivocally made up his mind to go ahead with his plans of reconstruction. Nothing has been brought on record to discredit his intentions. He has also the capacity to muster wherewithal required for reconstruction of the building. His intention therefore, is clearly grounded in good faith and has also the full element of reasonableness, in it. In respect of three shops, he has already succeeded to get ejectment orders on this very ground. In regard to the present shop, different result cannot follow."
4. Ch. Hamiduddin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at one stage the Rent Controller had consigned to the record the proceedings pending before him. Having done so, he could not have reviewed his order and proceeded to decide it. With its consignment the matter stood disposed of and the Rent Controller became functus officio. Additionally, it has been contended that the sanction period of the plan, which was one year, has already expired and unless its renewal is obtained, the application could not proceed. By reference to previous such applications, and the results thereof it has been contended that the entire proceedings initiated by the landlord were mala fide.
5. The events leading to and the order of consignment passed on 7-11-85 clearly shows that the consignment was temporary, upto a specified time. It was pursuant to the order of consignment itself and not in derogation of it that the proceedings were revived, continued and concluded.
6. It is not denied that when the application for ejectment was instituted the sanction for reconstruction was effective and good. If the proceedings got prolonged and the sanction expired, the merits of the application remain uneffected.
7. As regards plea of mala fides it is one of fact. Rent Controller and the High Court both have examined the merits of it and found none. We do not find anything wrong in it.