Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)

Section: 13

(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959),   S. 13(2)(vi)-Word "reconstruction"-Meaning-Landlord can apply for order directing delivery of possession of building for reconstruction-Test of re-erection: Landlord's desire to rebuild and not state of building.   (b) Second appeal-   Finding of fact-Concurrent findings of fact by lower Courts-Cannot be disturbed in second appeal-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100.   JUDGMENT   The facts giving rise to this second appeal briefly are that Mian Feroze Shah, plaintiff-respondent, is the owner of a shop situate in Chowk Resham Garan, Peshawar City, which is in possession of the appellant as a tenant under him on payment of Rs. 100 p.m. as rent. An application was made by K. B. Mian Feroze Shah to the Rent Controller on 6th October 1961 under the Rent Restriction Ordinance for the ejectment of Muhammad Gut appellant from the shop alleging that it was in a dilapidated condition and he wanted to reconstruct it. The application was resisted by Muhammad Gut appellant who contended that the shop did not require repairs or reconstruction. The following issues were framed:-   Whether the petitioner wants to reconstruct the disputed property?   Whether the respondent has damaged the property in dispute and that is why the petitioner wants to reconstruct the same?   Relief.   After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller answered issue No. 1 in the affirmative and issue No. 2 against the plaintiff. As a result of his above?mentioned findings by his order dated 3rd October 1962, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment of Muhammad Gut from the property in suit in favour of Mian Feroze Shah. The appeal preferred by Muhammad Gut was dismissed by the learned District Judge by his order dated 16th February 1963. Muhammad Gut has come up on second appeal to this Court.   The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no material on the recordto show that the shop was been demolished by the respondent, and, therefore, section 13 subsection (2) clause (vi) was not applicable. Exh.…