ASHFAQ AHMED vs Mst. SHEERIN BAI MUHAMMAD ALI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the High Court's judgment ordering his eviction from a cantonment rent property on the ground of reconstruction. The core legal question addressed is whether section 14 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act bars the eviction of a tenant where a commercial building is sought to be reconstructed into a composite commercial and residential building without prior permission for conversion. The Supreme Court held that the bar under section 14 of the Act is not attracted when the proposed reconstruction results in a composite building comprising both commercial and residential units rather than a purely residential conversion. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that section 14 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act does not operate as a bar to eviction for reconstruction when the new structure constitutes a composite commercial and residential building.
- Does section 14 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act bar the eviction of a tenant for reconstruction when a commercial building is proposed to be converted into a composite commercial and residential building?
- Can a landlord seek eviction of a tenant for the purpose of reconstructing a building consisting of multiple units?
- Section 14, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought in a Cantonment Rent Restriction matter by a tenant; against the acceptance by the High Court of respondent's (landlady) appeal.
2. The petitioner has been ordered to be evicted on ground of requirement of the building for reconstruction.
3. It consists of multiple units. Learned counsel for the caveator has stated that the landlord has succeeded in regard to the two other units. And the impediment in reconstruction, is only of the unit involved in this case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner without refuting the above statement has contended that under section 14 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act a "commercial" building cannot be converted into "residential" one, without the requisite permission. And because no such permission was obtained by the landlady, therefore, the intended reconstruction of this commercial building being for "residential" purpose, the petitioner could not be evicted.
5. The High Court has properly dealt with this point. We may add that strictly speaking the bar of section 14 would not be attracted because the proposed reconstruction of the building will not be only for "residential" purpose. It will be a composite building consisting of "Commercial and Residential" units. Be that as it may, we agree with the High Court that section 14 by itself is no bar to respondent's seeking eviction of the petitioner in this case. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused.