2012 C L C 179
[Balochistan]
Before Abdul Qadir Mengal, J
Syed AHMED JAN and others ----Petitioners
Versus
ANJUMAN -E-ISLAMIA, BALOCHISTAN through Manager and others ----
Respondents
F.A.Os. Nos.94, 95, 99, 117, 120, of 2009, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2010,
decided on 14th September, 2011.
(a) West Pakistan Urb an Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----Ss. 4, 13(6) & 15 ---Ejectment petition ---Bona fide personal need of demised land by
landlord for constructing thereon multi -storeyed building ---Letter of Municipal
Administration permitting landlord to co nstruct proposed building ---Tenants' plea that 40
years ago, they got disputed open land on rent and constructed thereon shops with their
expenses and spent considerable amount on installing therein machineries for their
business, whereas landlord instead of compensating them was ruining their business ---
Order of Rent Controller directing tenants to vacate premises within four months while
directing landlord to give shops to tenants in newly -constructed building equal to an area
of existing shops in possess ion of each tenant ---Validity ---None of the tenants had denied
ownership of landlord, its such requirement and obtaining of such letter of permission ---
Landlord had fully established its requirement ---Landlord had obtained necessary
sanctions for construct ing proposed building, thus, tenants' grievance was not acceptable
for being no more than to stop pace of development ---Impugned order did not suffer from
any illegality ---Khasra number of shop in possession of tenant did not find mention in
such letter of permission, but he had not disputed that his shop was not part of demised
premises ---Tenants would suffer irreparable loss and would be deprived of their
livelihood on account of demolition of superstructure of existing shops and removal of
such machineri es therefrom ---Landlord being a welfare society serving the general public
had no resources to compensate tenants for demolition of their superstructure ---Rent
Controller while passing impugned order had not determined or fixed fair rent in respect
of prop osed new building, wherein landlord had to accommodate tenants ---High Court
dismissed appeals while directing landlord to charge from tenants 30% less rent in
proposed new building to that of rent prevailing in market at time of accommodating
them.
1997 SCMR 1819 and PLD 1971 Lah. 210 rel.
(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S. 15 ---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96 ---Appeal against ejectment order
passed by Rent Controller ---Powers of Appellate Court ---Scope ---Such appeal was an
appeal from an original decree under S.96, C.P.C. ---Appellate Court had same powers
and would perform same duties imposed by courts of original jurisdiction.
1984 SCMR 504 rel.
Rauf Ahmed Hashmi for Appellant (in F.A.Os. Nos.94 and 95 of 2009).
Sher Shah for Respondent No.1 (in F.A.Os. Nos.94 and 95 of 2009).
Munir Langove for Appellant (in F.A.O. No.99 of 2009).
Sher Shah for Respondent No.1 (in F.A.O. No.99 of 2009).
Gul Hassan for Appellant (in F.A.O. No.117 of 2009 ).
Sher Shah for Respondent No.1 (in F.A.O. No.117 of 2009).
Baz Muhammad Kakar for Appellant (in F.A.O. No.120 of 2009).
Sher Shah for Respondent No.1 (in F.A.O. No.120 of 2009).
Mian Badar -e-Munir for Appellant (in F.A.Os. Nos.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1 1, 12 and
13 of 2010).
Sher Shah for Respondent No.1 (in F.A.Os. Nos.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13
of 2010).
Kamran Murtaza for Appellant (in F.A.O. No.14 of 2010).
Sher Shah for Respondent No.1 (in F.A.O. No.14 of 2010).
Date of hearing: 9th Sep tember, 2011.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL QADIR MENGAL, J. --- Through this common judgment, I have
proposed to dispose of the F.A.Os. Nos.94 of 2009, 95 of 2009, 99 of 2009, 117 of 2009,
120 of 2009, 3 of 2010, 4 of 2010, 6 of 2010, 7 of 2010, 8 of 2010, 9 of 2010 , 10 of 2010,
11 of 2010, 12 of 2010, 13 of 2010 and 14 of 2010, as the law and facts involved in the
above all F.A.Os. are same and common which arising out from the judgments dated 30 -
3-2009 and 4 -12-2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge -III/Rent Contr oller Quetta, in
eviction applications, filed against the appellants by the respondent No.1/applicant
Anjuman -e-Islamia, Balochistan, whereby the learned Civil Judge -III/Rent Controller,
Quetta allowed the eviction applications in respect of premises beari ng Khasra No.638,
648, 639, 647, 640, 642, 580, 641, 582, 644, 583, 581, 586, 585, 637, 645, 643, 584, 646,
Khata No.133, Khatooni Nos.269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280,
281, 282, 283, 284, 285 and 286, measuring approximately 1702 3 sq.ft. in Ward No.35, at
the Junction of Shara -e-Iqbal and Munsafi Road, Quetta, over which there are various
premises bearing Municipal Nos.1 -27-37, 1 -27-38, 1 -27-39-A, 1-27-39-B, 1-27-40, 1 -
27-41, 1 -27-42/44, 1 -27-43, 1 -27-45, 1 -27-46 (1 to 5), 1 -27-46(6), 1 -27-46(7), 1 -27-
46(8), 1 -27-46(9), 1 -27-46(10), 1 -27-46(11), 1 -27, 46(12), 1 -27-46(13), 1 -27-46(14) and
1-27-46(15 -A). So as Khasra Nos.338 (188 sq.ft), 339 (180 sq.ft), 340 (180 sq.ft), 341
(185 sq.ft), 342 (195 sq.ft), 343 (180 sq.ft), 344 (1 80 sq.ft), 345 (180 sq.ft), 346 (180
sq.ft), 347 (183 sq.ft), 400 (328 sq.ft), 401 (177 sq.ft), 402 (158 sq.ft), 403 (159 sq.ft),
404 (185 sq.ft), 405 (155 sq.ft), 406 (403 sq.ft), 407 (359 sq.ft) and 350 (6192 sq.ft),
situated at Toghi Road, Quetta and di rected the appellants to vacate the premises within
four months from the date of passing of the judgments and further the respondent
No.1/applicant was directed to hand over the shops to the appellants in proposed newly -
constructed plaza to an area equal to the shops in possession of each and every
appellants. Whereas, the eviction application was treated dismissed as to the extent
of respondent No.62 to 62 -D, who having Khokas, bearing Municipal No.01 -27/39(1).
The appellants being aggri eved of the said judgments have approached this Court
through the instant appeals.
2. M/s Kamran Murtaza, Baz Muhammad Kakar, Mian Badar Munir, Rauf Hashmi
and Gul Hassan, Advocates were heard on behalf of the appellants, whereas Mr. Sher
Shah Kasi, Advoca te represented the respondent No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia,
Balochistan.
3. The facts of all these appeals are almost same and identical one, whereas the
respondent No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia, Balochistan being a society registered
under the Soci ety Act, 1860 having its office in the premises of Islamia High School,
Mechongi Road is the owner of the land bearing Nos. mentioned hereinabove, and on
which the appellants have constructed of their own shops and carrying business since
1967 and afterwar ds, whereas it is stated that some of the shops situated at Circular Road,
to have been constructed by the respondent No.1/applicant and has been handed over to
the appellants.
4. The respondent No.1/applicant through an eviction application, filed against the
appellants requested the Court for eviction of the appellants, on different grounds
including that of the respondent No.1/applicant requires the premises for re -construction
and erection of a multi -storeyed building, therefore, the appellants be evict ed from the
premises as described and referred in the eviction applications. Whereas for re -
construction of the proposed new building, necessary approval has been obtained on 25 -4-
2008 from Zarghoon Town, Quetta, but the appellants/respondents are not read y to vacate
and hand over the premises to the respondent No.1/applicant.
5. The appellants/respondents while opposing the eviction applications, filed by the
respondent No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan raised certain legal and as well
as factua l objections and finally stated that the appellants got or handed over disputed
open land by the respondent No.1/applicant to the appellants as back as 40 years and
since then they are in possession and have raised superstructure over the premises in
shape of shops of their own expenses and also have spent considerable amount for their
business in shape of installing printing machines and like other instruments. Whereas the
respondent No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan instead of compensating the
appellants, almost intended to ruin their livelihood. Actually the respondent
No.1/applicant did not want to build any plaza, but the main object of the respondent
No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan was to vacate and grab the land by means
of filing false eviction applications.
6. After hearing the both sides, I have also perused the record of the case. Though the
learned counsel for the appellants have raised many objections in their appeals by
attacking the impugned judgments, passed by the Civ il Judge -III/Rent Controller, Quetta,
but it appears to me that before this Court no any specific ground was agitated, which
could show that the learned trial Court/Rent Controller, Quetta has passed any illegal or
improper order. The learned counsel also failed to point out any misreading or non -
reading of the evidence in the impugned judgments. The ground, on which the learned
Civil Judge -III/Rent Controller, Quetta has based his eviction judgment, seems has been
fully established by the respondent No.1/a pplicant Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan that he
requires the disputed plots for the purpose of raising plaza over the said property and this
fact has not been controverted by the appellants. Admittedly the appellants are not
disputing the ownership of respo ndent No.1/applicant regarding the disputed premises. So
as also no any specific material has come on record from the side of the appellants, which
could show that the respondent No.1/applicant unjustifiably harassing them.
7. The grounds, which the appell ants mostly have agitated before the trial Court and
as well as before this Court, are objections of common nature, just as the respondent
No.1/applicant is not authorized to file the eviction applications on behalf of the
Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan or as the description of the properties have not been
properly mentioned. Whereas none of the appellants almost has repudiated or rejected the
contention of the respondent No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia that he would not
reconstruct a new building on the di sputed premises and further none of them has
repudiated that the respondent No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan has not
obtained any approval from the concerned Municipal Administration to build a multi -
storeyed building. As admittedly section 13 clause 6 of Balochistan Urban Rent
Restriction Ordinance allows the Rent Controller to evict any person when the owner of
any building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for re -
construction or erection of a building on the site, when the landlord has obtained the
necessary sanctions from the competent authorities for re -construction or erection of the
appellants then agitation of appellants is no more than to stop the pace of development,
which is not acceptable. In this respect 1997 SCMR 1819 is very much clear, which reads
as under: ---
"Landlord has right to enjoy his own property by making improvement or
changes if otherwise entitled to seek its possession from the tenant --- No clog
exists on the rights of landlord fo r re-constructing the old building for his
bona fide requirement"
It means that the impugned judgments, passed by the Civil Judge -III/Rent
Controller, Quetta have a legal back and rightly have been passed by evicting the
appellants from the possessed prem ises.
8. Though Mr. Kamran Murtaza Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant in
F.A.O. No.14 of 2010, agitated that Khasra No.400, measuring 328 sq.ft. has not been
mentioned in the permission letter for construction of multi -storeyed building/plaza,
therefore, when his Khasra number is not included in the approval letter, on which his
shop bearing Nos.11 and 12 are existing, so the respondent No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-
Islamia Balochistan cannot evict the appellant from the premises on that ground and in
this regard the learned Rent Controller, Quetta has erred in holding that his premises are
required for construction of new building. On my anxious thought to the objection, I am
of the view that the letter of permission No.1588, prima facie does not show K hasra
No.400 of the appellant, however, admittedly he did not dispute that his shops bearing
Nos.11 and 12 are not part of the said premises, on which the proposed new plaza is to
be constructed and for which the Court has directed to allot him premises equal to the
ejected premises of the shops. Hence this point, on account of the above having no force
is repelled.
9. As, I have mentioned hereinabove, that no any other significant ground has been
agitated before this Court, which amounting to be an illegality or impropriety in the
impugned judgments. However, in my view there is some force in the contentions of the
appellants that they are occupying the premises from the last more than 40 years, being
faithful tenants and without any complaint fr om any corner. Again there is also weight or
force in the contention of the appellants that they had got open pieces of lands from the
respondent No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan and then developed it by
constructing of their superstructure and establishing their businesses such as, printing
press etc, but on account of the demolishing of all the structures and removing the
machines, they certainly would suffer irreparable losses and then would be deprived of
their livelihood. So being, they gen uinely require some compensation from the respondent
No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan.
10. On my considering the view, admittedly the Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan,
being a welfare society, serving to the general public and having no any such r esources to
compensate the appellants in respect of their removal from the premises or demolishing
the structures. However, considering the section 4 of the Rent laws, I think it would have
been proper that the Rent Controller would have considered this as pect of the matter, but
he failed to do so. Whereas appeal under section 15 of the Ordinance is an appeal from a
original decree under section 96, C.P.C. And the appellate Court has the same powers and
shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as a re confirmed and imposed by the
Courts of original jurisdiction. In this regard I have benefited my view from 1984 SCMR,
504. Therefore, I think it would be proper in the present matter to determine or fix fair
rent in respect of the proposed new re -constr ucted plaza, in which according to the
impugned judgments, the appellants were to accommodate by the respondent
No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan. Thus under section 4 of the Balochistan
Ordinance 3 of 1980, the respondent No.1/applicant Anjuman -e-Islamia Balochistan is
directed that while accommodating the appellants, he/she shall charge the rent from the
appellants less than 3% of the rent in the proposed newly constructed plaza to that of the
prevailing market rent value. In this respect I hav e supported my view from PLD 1971
Lahore, 210, which reads as follows: ---
"Section 4 provides that the Controller shall take into consideration the rent
of the same or a similar accommodation in similar circumstances prevailing
in the locality. This, howe ver does not deprive the Controller from taking into
consideration other factors in fixing the fair rent, such as long stay of 20
years, of location of premises in the most prosperous commercial area".
Thus with the above modification in the impugned judg ments dated 30 -3-2009 and
4-12-2009, passed by the Civil Judge -III/ Rent Controller, Quetta, the same are
maintained and the appeals are dismissed with no order as to cost.
S.A.K./117/Q Appeals dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.