IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Present:

Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar

Mr. Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui

C. P. No. D - 893 of 2015

Karachi Citizens Basic Rights Effectees Welfare Association..…..Petitioner

Versus

Sindh Building Control Authority and 03 others....…………….Respondents

Date of Hearing : 21.03.2017

None present for the petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Salim Khan, advocate for respondent No.4.

Roa Sarfaraz Khan, advocate for SBCA.

Mr. Iqbal Khurram, advocate for KMC.

a/w Syed Athar Hussain, Deputy Director (Land), KMC.

Mr. Miran Muhammad Shah, AAG Sindh.

J U D G M E N T

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: The petitioner is an organization registered under the Societies Act, 1860. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has raised the issue of the illegal and unauthorized use of a residential property for commercial activities by the respondent No. 4 (Real Rose Beauty Parlour).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 is running a beauty parlour in his residential property bearing No. 2-A, 6/19, Enquiry Office, Behind Model Park, Nazimabad No. 2, Karachi. The petitioner alleged that the respondent No. 4 is using his residential property situated in a residential area for commercial activities without any approval from the competent authorities. According to the petitioner, the residents of Karachi are facing a lot of difficulties in peaceful living in their residential areas due to illegal conversion and utilization of residential properties for commercial purposes. The official respondents are responsible for checking such illegal activities, but they are not doing so. The petitioner has sought relief of closure of the aforesaid beauty parlour and also directions to the official respondents for taking actions against the illegal and unauthorized use of residential properties for commercial activities.

3. After the service of notices, the official respondents as well as respondent No. 4 appeared and took part in the proceedings. The respondent No. 1 (SBCA) and respondent No. 2 (KMC) filed counter affidavit and comment respectively. The private respondent No. 4 also filed reply to the petition as well as counter affidavit. The respondent No. 1 (SBCA) points out in their counter affidavit that there is a violation in respect of the illegal use of ground floor of the property for commercial purposes. As mentioned in their counter affidavit, SBCA has already taken action against respondent No. 4 for running a beauty parlour and prosecuted the owner u/s 19 of SBCO, 1979 by filing a complaint against him before learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Karachi Central. The official respondent No. 2 filed comments in which they disclosed that the subject property does not fall under their jurisdiction. Mr. Mohammed Salim Khan advocate filed power on behalf of respondent No. 4 on 07-03-2017 and undertook to file counter affidavit along with copies of registered lease deed of the subject plot and permission, if any, from the competent authority to use the same for commercial purposes. In compliance of such undertaking, the private respondent No. 4 filed his reply and counter affidavit along with some documents including registered lease deed. In his reply, he denied some factual aspects of the petition and levelled certain allegations against the petitioner, but he admits that the beauty parlour is running on the ground floor of the property. It is contended by the respondent No. 4 in his reply that he had already approached to concerned authorities for conversion of land use from residential to commercial.

4. We have heard the arguments and perused the record and documents filed by the parties with their respective pleadings.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 emphasized that his client has already approached the concerned authorities for conversion of the use of plot from residential to commercial and the commercial activities are being carried out by verbal permission of some officials of SBCA. According to him, as the respondent No. 4 has also deposited the requisite fee, therefore, there is no harm or illegality in using the property for commercial purpose. The learned counsel for SBCA categorically stated that they would not approve the plan for the commercial use of a building erected on a residential plot.

6. We have seen the lease deed of the property in question. According to lease deed, the lessor has granted a lease for 50 years for residential purposes only. In the existing circumstances, we specifically direct the respondent No. 4 that he should not use his residential property for a beauty parlour or any other commercial activity as long as the status of his property is for the use of residential purpose. We further direct him that he should remove all signs and gear of commercial utilization of the property mentioned above including the sign board of the name of his beauty parlour. We also direct the respondent No. 1 (SBCA) to take action against the respondent No. 4 if he is found using his residential property for commercial purpose strictly in accordance with law. In the above terms, the instant petition is disposed of with no order is to cost.

JUDGE