 |
| تعمیر نو کے لیے دوکانیں خالی کروانا۔ |
تعمیرِ نو کے لیے کرایہ دار کی بے دخلی سے پہلے میونسپل منظوری لازمی، بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
Must read judgment.
2026 C I. C 950
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Najam-ud-Din Mengal, J
AMIR RAZA BUTT and others-Appellants
Versus
Haji SHAMS-UD-DIN and others -Respondents
F.A.Os. Nos. 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of 2025, decided on 31st October, 2025.
Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)---
----Ss. 13(3)(a)(ii) & 13(2)(vi)---Eviction petition---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Scope-Re-construction / erection of rented. properties-Scope Good faith and reasonableness, demonstration of Pre-requisite Sanction from municipal authority, statutory requirement of---Scope-Eviction of tenants, from rented shops in a market, was denied on the ground that the landlord (appellant) failed to produce required sanction from municipal authority for re-construction-Validity-Record reflected that the ownership of the subject-property stood established through relevant mutations by duly exhibited documents showing transfer of title to the appellant-Even otherwise, the respondent, while deposing as witnesses, admitted that he had been been depositing rent in the Court and such rent was withdrawn by the appellant through court order-Once rent is paid or deposited on behalf of the landlord and withdrawn by him under Court's permission, the relationship of landlord and tenant stands proved-Admittedly, the appellant sought eviction of the tenants from almost all shops of the market; such conduct explicitly showed that the appellant intended to vacate the entire building and reconstruct it into a new commercial plaza, rather than to occupy few shops for personal use-Thus, the case of the appellant did not fall within ambit of personal bonafide need under $.13(3)(a)(ii) of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ('the Ordinance 1959'), but squarely fell under $.13(2)(vi) of the Ordinance, 1959---Since the intention of legislature is very much clear from the bare perusal of the relevant provisions of 5.13(2)(vi) of the Ordinance, 1959, which makes it obligatory for the owner/landlord of the building to obtain necessary sanction for reconstruction from concerned municipal authority, at the time of filing of eviction application or even during its pendency-Moreover, the said statutory requirement explicitly shows that before seeking eviction for reconstruction, the landlord must demonstrate good faith and reasonableness of the requirement and also to produce the necessary sanction or approval from the competent municipal authority---While, in the present case, the appellant failed to produce any sanction for reconstruction during trial, as such, the Rent Controller. rightly dismissed the petitions for want of compliance with the mandatory provision, however, the omission to produce the sanction is not necessarily fatal to the entire claim, as the defect was curable-The spirit of justice demands that where the landlord's intent appears bona fide and capable of legal compliance, an opportunity should be afforded to remedy the deficiency rather than non-suiting the party altogether-Said principle implies that the sanction may be produced before the Rent Controller to satisfy the statutory requirement---Since the ownership of the landlord was not disputed, thus, the proper course would be to remand the matter to afford the appellant an opportunity to obtain and place such sanction on record-High Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded to the Rent Controller the matter with the directions to afford an opportunity to the appellant/landlord in obtaining the necessary sanction/approval for reconstruction from the municipal authority: upon production of such sanction, the Rent Controller would re-evaluate the eviction applications in light of S.13(2)(vi) of the Ordinance, 1959 and would decide the matter afresh-Appeals, filed by landlord, were allowed accordingly.
Mian Badar e Munir for Appellants. Muhammad Javed Iqbal Kasi for Respondents.