RENT CASES
Citation Name : 2015 YLR 544 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : HASSAN ALI GONDAL
Side Opponent : KARIM ENTERPRISES
S.24—Punjab Rent ed Premises Act (VII of 2009), Ss. 15 & 22—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A—Application for Eviction of Tenant —Transfer of Eviction application—Bias in Rent Tribunal —Scope—Tenant s filed application for transfer of Eviction application which was dismissed by the District Judge—Contention of the Tenant s was that Rent Tribunal was biased against them—Petitioners had attributed bias on account of dismissal of their applications by the Rent Tribunal —Mere fact that Rent Tribunal had decided interlocutory applications against the petitioners was not sufficient to establish bias—Interim orders passed on applications were amenable to revisional jurisdiction—Nothing was on record to show that orders on applications were passed with mala fide or for consideration—Wrong order passed by the court in good faith would not furnish ground of bias—Petitioners had not been able to attribute bias—Nothing was on record to show that principles of natural justice were violated by the Rent Tribunal —Proceedings in the Eviction petition were required to be conducted expeditiously—Short adjournments were hardly ground to attribute bias—Bona fide expeditious proceedings could not give cause of grievance to move for transfer of the Eviction petition—District Judge had passed the impugned order through lawful exercise of jurisdiction—No jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity or irregularity was found—Revision was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2015 MLD 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MEHMOOD AKHTAR MAQBOOL
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Ss. 15, 21 (1) & 22 (6)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Ejectment of Tenant —Application for leave to contest—Limitation—Tenant moved petition for leave to contest after prescribed period of ten days which was dismissed being beyond statutory period of limitation—Contention of Tenant was that no notice in terms of S.21(1) of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 was issued, and that notice should not only be in prescribed form but also accompanied by the copy of application and documents annexed with the same enabling the Tenant to file application for leave to contest within 10 days—Eviction petition was accepted concurrently—Validity—Rent Tribunal declined application for leave to defend being beyond the statutory period of limitation—Tenant neither challenged the said order at the relevant time nor when the final order was passed against him—Tenant had not raised any objection with regard to his non-service in the appeal in accordance with the provisions of S.21(1) of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007—Tenant could not be allowed to raise such plea for the first time in constitutional petition—Tenant was barred to raise such objection after lapse of more than four years and nine months of passing the final Eviction order—Rent Tribunal was bound to pass final order in case of non-filing of application for leave to defend by the Tenant and was justified in passing of impugned order for Eviction which had rightly been maintained by the Appellate Court—No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned orders—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 776 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMAD YASMIN
Side Opponent : Mst. NAHEED BANO
Ss. 15, 21(b) & 31—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Ejectment of Tenant —Ex parte Eviction order, setting aside of—Appeal—Limitation—Court-fee, affixation of—Ex parte Eviction order was passed against which appeal was filed which was dismissed due to non-deposit of court fee—Validity—Notices were sent for service of Tenant at the same address which was given by him in the constitutional petition but he did not receive the same—Notice was also pasted at the door of house of Tenant and publication in the newspaper was also made but he did not appear before the Rent Tribunal —Tenant had willfully avoided service of notice and ex parte Eviction order was passed—Tenant had remedy to get the ex parte order set aside within 10 days from the date of knowledge but he did not avail the said remedy and filed appeal which was barred by limitation—No explanation was furnished for filing a delayed appeal—Rent Tribunal could execute an order passed by it or by the Appellate Court under Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 as a decree of a civil court and for such purpose he might exercise any or all the powers of a civil court—“Final order” passed by the Rent Tribunal had the force of a “decree of civil court”—Tenant was required to affix ad valorem court fee i. e. 7.5% of the annual Rent al value of demised premises on appeal filed by him—No illegality had been committed by the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal for non-deposit of requisite court fee—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 229 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL GHAFOOR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Ss. 24 & 15—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition— Ejectment of Tenant —Default in payment of Rent —Effect—Rent Tribunal directed the Tenant to deposit monthly Rent till 10th of each following month but same was not deposited and Eviction petition was accepted—Validity—Rent Tribunal not only had power to pass an order for deposit of Rent due within a specified time and continue to deposit the same in the bank account of landlord or in the Rent Tribunal till final order was passed but had also power to forthwith pass final order if Tenant had failed to comply with such order—Leave to contest was granted to the Tenant and he was directed to pay Rent of the premises in the court till 10th of each following month—Tenant had failed to comply with such direction and he had not deposited any amount—Provision of S.24(4) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 was mandatory and Tenant , in circumstances, had committed default in payment of Rent —Rent Tribunal had no other option except to pass impugned judgment and accept the ejectment petition—No infirmity or defect had been pointed out in the judgments passed by the courts below—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 YLR 2309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAHID
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL
O.R. 4, Ss. 12 (2) & 151-Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009), S.19—Application for Eviction of Tenant -Default in payment of Rent —Appointment of pleader— Misrepresentation— Scope— Tenant moved application for leave to contest but the same was declined– Application for ejectment was accepted concurrently-Constitutional petition of Tenant wherein ejectment order was challenged was dismissed in limine by the High Court against which appeal was filed before the Supreme Court and matter was remanded to the High Court for decision afresh after summoning the record of the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court-Constitutional petition was again dismissed by the High Court against which application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. read with S. 151, C.P.C. was moved by the Tenant on the ground that neither he nor his counsel authorized the other counsel who argued the case and no opportunity of hearing was given to him and he was misrepresented— Validity- Tenant -petitioner for pleading his cause before the High Court had engaged his counsel but on the date of hearing another counsel appeared on behalf of the Tenant -petitioner and argued the case which was dismissed-Tenant -petitioner while appointing his counsel had authorized him to engage other counsel to act in his place or in collaboration with him and had authorized such other counsel to exercise the same authority which had been conferred on his counsel-Construction of document appointing agent was different from the construction of Wakalatnama appointing counsel and in the case of agent the document would be construed strictly and the agent would have only such powers as were conferred expressly or by necessary implication-No bar existed on pleader duly authorized by the party under “Wakalatnama” to engage another pleader without any written instrument to plead the case on his behalf—Power to “plead” would include within its scope and ambit, the right to examine witness, to conduct admission and denial, to seek adjournments and address arguments, etc as might be authorized and such pleader however would not have the power to compromise case, withdraw case or do any other act which might compromise the interest of his client—Tenant -petitioner had failed to bring on record the affidavit/certificate of his counsel denying his association with the other counsel and it would be presumed that the other counsel in view of Order III, Rule 4, C.P.C. and power conferred on the principal counsel through “Wakalatnama” being authorized was competent to appear before the High Court and plead the cause of the Tenant -petitioner—Bald assertions in the application could not be accepted as otherwise such would jeopardize the system of administration of justice and when counsel had been authorized under Wakalatnama to present his client, the junior or associate of the said counsel could be permitted without any authority in writing to appear on behalf of the counsel representing the said client as and when the counsel himself was not in a position to appear—Other counsel had contested the case on behalf of the Tenant -petitioner and pleaded all the grounds which were available to him for assailing the vires of ejectment order—Tenant -petitioner had not urged any ground of mala fide or collusion or fraud against the other counsel and had not questioned the legal acumen or competency of the other counsel in pleading his cause before the High Court and such was not “misrepresentation” within the contemplation of S.12(2), ,C%P.C.–Application was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2014 CLC 929 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Syed GULZAR ALI SHAH
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Ss. 15, 19 & 24(1), (2), (4)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—Determination of tentative Rent —Failure to deposit tentative Rent on the direction of Rent Tribunal —Eviction of Tenant —Scope—Tenant was directed to vacate the premises on account of default in payment of tentative Rent —Contention of the petitioner/Tenant was that tentative Rent so determined by the Rent Tribunal was unjustified, therefore Eviction order was illegal—Validity—Main purpose of the promulgation of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and its preceding legislations was not so much to provide a fast track mechanism to a landlord to realize unpaid Rent or to evict a non-compliant Tenant but was primarily aimed at protecting the rights of a Tenant who was cognizant of the privilege and the license which had been granted to use the Rented premises and who had not in any manner rendered himself liable to be Eviction on the grounds provided in the law—If a statute granted privilege upon certain conditions to a person the said person seeking the privilege must also demonstrate that he had strictly complied with the conditions of the privilege and unless such conditions was not religiously fulfilled the said privilege was not available to the said person and as the other party to the lis could not be deprived of its rights under the law—Section 24(4) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 being mandatory in nature required that the Rent Tribunal “shall forthwith pass the final order” in case of non-compliance of its direction or order—Lawful orders of Rent Tribunal could not be avoided by the Tenant under the garb of putting forward his own stance—Tenant if not satisfied with calculation or with rate of Rent so determined, was duty bound to made deposit to avoid striking off defence—Tenant , at best could ask Rent Controller to decline withdrawal of amount by landlord, but could not withhold deposit of arrears on any flimsy plea—Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2014 PLD 87 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BAKHT MUNIR
Side Opponent : QADIR KHAN
Ss. 15, 21 & 22—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Application for Eviction of Tenant —Ex parte proceedings against Tenant —Scope—Tenant filed applications for setting aside ex parte proceedings and sought leave to contest which were dismissed concurRent ly—Contention of Tenant was that Rent Tribunal had not issued notice in the form prescribed in the Schedule—Rent Tribunal should have issued notice in the form prescribed in the Schedule for appearance of Tenant on the date not later than ten days—Said notice was to be accompanied by the copies of Eviction application and documents annexed with the same—Rent Tribunal might proceed ex parte and pass any order if Tenant had failed to appear in spite of service—Tenant might apply for setting aside ex parte order along with application for leave to contest within ten days from the knowledge of the same—Tenant , in the present case, could not be served through ordinary mode of service and he had appeared in response to the proclamation which did not contain the condition that leave application was required to be filed within ten days—No notice as prescribed by law having been served upon the Tenant , Tenant could not be burdened with the consequences of mandatory provisions of subsections (2) and (6) of S.22 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 when no notice in the prescribed form accompanied by the copies of Eviction petition and documents annexed with the same was served upon him or was handed over to him while appearing before the Rent Tribunal —When law required a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done accordingly—If prescribed procedure was not followed, it would be presumed that same had not be done in accordance with law—Non- compliance of directory provisions of subsection (1) of S.21 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 amounted to denial of a statutory right of Tenant —Penalty of provisions of subsection (6) of S.21 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 could not be invoked in the event of such non-compliance of said statutory provisions—Mandatory provisions of law had been violated in the present case—Prescribed procedure had not been followed by the Rent Tribunal nor same was noticed by the Appellate Court—Impugned orders of both the courts below were set aside—Rent Tribunal was directed by High Court to decide application for leave to contest afresh and then to proceed further in accordance with law—Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.
Citation Name : 2013 SCMR 1520 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MIRZA BOOK AGENCY
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
Ss. 8, 9 & 15—Eviction petition—Time limit of 2 years stipulated under S.8 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 for a landlord/Tenant to bring a tenancy agreement in conformity with the provisions of the said Act—Mandatory—Depositing of fine by landlord/Tenant to bring the tenancy agreement in conformity with the said Act—Question as to whether a landlord/Tenant having an existing tenancy could approach the Rent Tribunal for enforcement of his rights under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, without depositing such fine on the basis that time period of 2 years provided under S. 8 of said Act had not lapsed—Landlord, in the present case, filed Eviction petition against Tenant (appellant) under S. 15 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Plea of Tenant was that there was an existing tenancy agreement between the parties, but the same had not been brought in conformity with the provisions of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 as required under S. 8 of the said Act, therefore Eviction petition of landlord could not be entertained in terms of S. 9 of the said Act without the landlord first paying the fine to the tune of ten per cent—Rent Tribunal discarded plea of Tenant and allowed the Eviction petition—Appeal and constitutional petition filed before High Court against order of Rent Tribunal were also dismissed—Validity—Provisions of S. 9 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 were mandatory not only vis-a-vis the future tenancies, but also with respect to existing tenancies—Where a landlord or Tenant moved the Rent Tribunal for the exercise of his right and enforcement of obligations of the opposite side in terms of provisions of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, notwithstanding that a period of two years was available under S. 8 of the said Act to bring the existing tenancies in conformity with the said Act, he was obliged to pay the fine/penalty under S. 9 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 at the time of filing the petition/application or as directed by the Rent Tribunal —Cases where applications/petitions (of the landlord or the Tenant ) had been entertained and were pending before the Rent Tribunal or had been finally adjudicated by the Tribunal and were pending in further hierarchy of appeal or in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court or even before the Supreme Court; and the original applicant/petitioner had not paid the fine which he was required to pay, such proceedings should be halted, and the original applicant/petitioner should first be directed to pay/deposit the amount of fine as per S. 9 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Amount of fine and the time for it should be exactly specified by the court seized of the matter in the requisite order, and in case of failure to pay such fine, the original application/petition should be dismissed—In the present case, however, pursuant to the Eviction order passed against the Tenant , possession of suit property had also been taken over by the landlord during pendency of the present appeal in the execution process, therefore, principle of past and closed transaction was applicable to the present case—Appeal of Tenant was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2013 MLD 371 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : CIVIL JUDGE/RENT TRIBUNAL, RAJANPUR
Ss. 2(b), 28 & 24—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.15—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—“Final order”—Connotation—Scope—Appeal against order of Rent Tribunal directing Tenant to deposit arrears of Rent with court under S.24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Maintainability—Landlord (petitioner) impugned order whereby landlord’s appeal against order of Rent Tribunal directing Tenant to pay arrears of Rent in court, was dismissed on the ground that same was against an interim order and was not maintainable—Validity—Prima facie, interim order to pay Rent may not be the final order as S. 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 provided that Tenant shall keep on paying the Rent till final order which may be one culminating in Eviction or in dismissal of ejectment petition—Section 24 of the Act had to be read along with S. 2(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009; and both sections should be read in juxtaposition and contradistinction to provisions of S.15 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; provisions of which segregate an appealable order from all other orders by qualifying the former as the one finally disposing of an application under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959—“Final order” under S.2(b) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 included an order for arrears or Rent —Impugned order of Rent Tribunal directing Tenant to pay arrears of Rent was “final order” under S. 2(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and was therefore, appealable under S. 28 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Impugned orders were set aside—Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.
Citation Name : 2012 YLR 2293 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Syed BAHADURALI SHAH
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S.5—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199–Constitutional petition—Ejectment of Tenant —Tenancy agreement, expiry of—Filing of civil suit—ConcurRent findings of fact by two courts below—Tenancy agreement had expired, when ejectment application was filed by landlady and Tenant had also filed civil suit against landlady regarding premises in question—Eviction order passed by Rent Tribunal was maintained by Lower Appellate Court—Validity—Tenant continued in Rented premises as Tenant , therefore, he was bound by terms and – conditions of earlier agreement executed between parties and Tenant could not seek any escape f ‘rain the tenancy—As execution of tenancy agreement was – not denied, therefore, filing of suit by Tenant was of no help to him, rather status of parties was governed by Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Landlady had been going from pillar to post for redressal of her grievance since year, 2008 but neither possession was restored to her nor any Rent had been paid by Tenant to her—Tenant failed to point out any illegality or perversity in Eviction orders qualifying interference by -High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction—Petition was dismissed in circumstances
Citation Name : 2015 YLR 544 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : HASSAN ALI GONDAL
Side Opponent : KARIM ENTERPRISES
S.24—Punjab Rent ed Premises Act (VII of 2009), Ss. 15 & 22—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A—Application for Eviction of Tenant —Transfer of Eviction application—Bias in Rent Tribunal —Scope—Tenant s filed application for transfer of Eviction application which was dismissed by the District Judge—Contention of the Tenant s was that Rent Tribunal was biased against them—Petitioners had attributed bias on account of dismissal of their applications by the Rent Tribunal —Mere fact that Rent Tribunal had decided interlocutory applications against the petitioners was not sufficient to establish bias—Interim orders passed on applications were amenable to revisional jurisdiction—Nothing was on record to show that orders on applications were passed with mala fide or for consideration—Wrong order passed by the court in good faith would not furnish ground of bias—Petitioners had not been able to attribute bias—Nothing was on record to show that principles of natural justice were violated by the Rent Tribunal —Proceedings in the Eviction petition were required to be conducted expeditiously—Short adjournments were hardly ground to attribute bias—Bona fide expeditious proceedings could not give cause of grievance to move for transfer of the Eviction petition—District Judge had passed the impugned order through lawful exercise of jurisdiction—No jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity or irregularity was found—Revision was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2015 MLD 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MEHMOOD AKHTAR MAQBOOL
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Ss. 15, 21 (1) & 22 (6)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Ejectment of Tenant —Application for leave to contest—Limitation—Tenant moved petition for leave to contest after prescribed period of ten days which was dismissed being beyond statutory period of limitation—Contention of Tenant was that no notice in terms of S.21(1) of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 was issued, and that notice should not only be in prescribed form but also accompanied by the copy of application and documents annexed with the same enabling the Tenant to file application for leave to contest within 10 days—Eviction petition was accepted concurrently—Validity—Rent Tribunal declined application for leave to defend being beyond the statutory period of limitation—Tenant neither challenged the said order at the relevant time nor when the final order was passed against him—Tenant had not raised any objection with regard to his non-service in the appeal in accordance with the provisions of S.21(1) of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007—Tenant could not be allowed to raise such plea for the first time in constitutional petition—Tenant was barred to raise such objection after lapse of more than four years and nine months of passing the final Eviction order—Rent Tribunal was bound to pass final order in case of non-filing of application for leave to defend by the Tenant and was justified in passing of impugned order for Eviction which had rightly been maintained by the Appellate Court—No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned orders—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 776 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMAD YASMIN
Side Opponent : Mst. NAHEED BANO
Ss. 15, 21(b) & 31—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Ejectment of Tenant —Ex parte Eviction order, setting aside of—Appeal—Limitation—Court-fee, affixation of—Ex parte Eviction order was passed against which appeal was filed which was dismissed due to non-deposit of court fee—Validity—Notices were sent for service of Tenant at the same address which was given by him in the constitutional petition but he did not receive the same—Notice was also pasted at the door of house of Tenant and publication in the newspaper was also made but he did not appear before the Rent Tribunal —Tenant had willfully avoided service of notice and ex parte Eviction order was passed—Tenant had remedy to get the ex parte order set aside within 10 days from the date of knowledge but he did not avail the said remedy and filed appeal which was barred by limitation—No explanation was furnished for filing a delayed appeal—Rent Tribunal could execute an order passed by it or by the Appellate Court under Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 as a decree of a civil court and for such purpose he might exercise any or all the powers of a civil court—“Final order” passed by the Rent Tribunal had the force of a “decree of civil court”—Tenant was required to affix ad valorem court fee i. e. 7.5% of the annual Rent al value of demised premises on appeal filed by him—No illegality had been committed by the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal for non-deposit of requisite court fee—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2015 CLC 229 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ABDUL GHAFOOR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Ss. 24 & 15—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition— Ejectment of Tenant —Default in payment of Rent —Effect—Rent Tribunal directed the Tenant to deposit monthly Rent till 10th of each following month but same was not deposited and Eviction petition was accepted—Validity—Rent Tribunal not only had power to pass an order for deposit of Rent due within a specified time and continue to deposit the same in the bank account of landlord or in the Rent Tribunal till final order was passed but had also power to forthwith pass final order if Tenant had failed to comply with such order—Leave to contest was granted to the Tenant and he was directed to pay Rent of the premises in the court till 10th of each following month—Tenant had failed to comply with such direction and he had not deposited any amount—Provision of S.24(4) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 was mandatory and Tenant , in circumstances, had committed default in payment of Rent —Rent Tribunal had no other option except to pass impugned judgment and accept the ejectment petition—No infirmity or defect had been pointed out in the judgments passed by the courts below—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2014 YLR 2309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAHID
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL
O.R. 4, Ss. 12 (2) & 151-Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009), S.19—Application for Eviction of Tenant -Default in payment of Rent —Appointment of pleader— Misrepresentation— Scope— Tenant moved application for leave to contest but the same was declined– Application for ejectment was accepted concurrently-Constitutional petition of Tenant wherein ejectment order was challenged was dismissed in limine by the High Court against which appeal was filed before the Supreme Court and matter was remanded to the High Court for decision afresh after summoning the record of the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court-Constitutional petition was again dismissed by the High Court against which application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. read with S. 151, C.P.C. was moved by the Tenant on the ground that neither he nor his counsel authorized the other counsel who argued the case and no opportunity of hearing was given to him and he was misrepresented— Validity- Tenant -petitioner for pleading his cause before the High Court had engaged his counsel but on the date of hearing another counsel appeared on behalf of the Tenant -petitioner and argued the case which was dismissed-Tenant -petitioner while appointing his counsel had authorized him to engage other counsel to act in his place or in collaboration with him and had authorized such other counsel to exercise the same authority which had been conferred on his counsel-Construction of document appointing agent was different from the construction of Wakalatnama appointing counsel and in the case of agent the document would be construed strictly and the agent would have only such powers as were conferred expressly or by necessary implication-No bar existed on pleader duly authorized by the party under “Wakalatnama” to engage another pleader without any written instrument to plead the case on his behalf—Power to “plead” would include within its scope and ambit, the right to examine witness, to conduct admission and denial, to seek adjournments and address arguments, etc as might be authorized and such pleader however would not have the power to compromise case, withdraw case or do any other act which might compromise the interest of his client—Tenant -petitioner had failed to bring on record the affidavit/certificate of his counsel denying his association with the other counsel and it would be presumed that the other counsel in view of Order III, Rule 4, C.P.C. and power conferred on the principal counsel through “Wakalatnama” being authorized was competent to appear before the High Court and plead the cause of the Tenant -petitioner—Bald assertions in the application could not be accepted as otherwise such would jeopardize the system of administration of justice and when counsel had been authorized under Wakalatnama to present his client, the junior or associate of the said counsel could be permitted without any authority in writing to appear on behalf of the counsel representing the said client as and when the counsel himself was not in a position to appear—Other counsel had contested the case on behalf of the Tenant -petitioner and pleaded all the grounds which were available to him for assailing the vires of ejectment order—Tenant -petitioner had not urged any ground of mala fide or collusion or fraud against the other counsel and had not questioned the legal acumen or competency of the other counsel in pleading his cause before the High Court and such was not “misrepresentation” within the contemplation of S.12(2), ,C%P.C.–Application was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2014 CLC 929 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Syed GULZAR ALI SHAH
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Ss. 15, 19 & 24(1), (2), (4)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—Determination of tentative Rent —Failure to deposit tentative Rent on the direction of Rent Tribunal —Eviction of Tenant —Scope—Tenant was directed to vacate the premises on account of default in payment of tentative Rent —Contention of the petitioner/Tenant was that tentative Rent so determined by the Rent Tribunal was unjustified, therefore Eviction order was illegal—Validity—Main purpose of the promulgation of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and its preceding legislations was not so much to provide a fast track mechanism to a landlord to realize unpaid Rent or to evict a non-compliant Tenant but was primarily aimed at protecting the rights of a Tenant who was cognizant of the privilege and the license which had been granted to use the Rented premises and who had not in any manner rendered himself liable to be Eviction on the grounds provided in the law—If a statute granted privilege upon certain conditions to a person the said person seeking the privilege must also demonstrate that he had strictly complied with the conditions of the privilege and unless such conditions was not religiously fulfilled the said privilege was not available to the said person and as the other party to the lis could not be deprived of its rights under the law—Section 24(4) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 being mandatory in nature required that the Rent Tribunal “shall forthwith pass the final order” in case of non-compliance of its direction or order—Lawful orders of Rent Tribunal could not be avoided by the Tenant under the garb of putting forward his own stance—Tenant if not satisfied with calculation or with rate of Rent so determined, was duty bound to made deposit to avoid striking off defence—Tenant , at best could ask Rent Controller to decline withdrawal of amount by landlord, but could not withhold deposit of arrears on any flimsy plea—Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2014 PLD 87 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BAKHT MUNIR
Side Opponent : QADIR KHAN
Ss. 15, 21 & 22—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Application for Eviction of Tenant —Ex parte proceedings against Tenant —Scope—Tenant filed applications for setting aside ex parte proceedings and sought leave to contest which were dismissed concurRent ly—Contention of Tenant was that Rent Tribunal had not issued notice in the form prescribed in the Schedule—Rent Tribunal should have issued notice in the form prescribed in the Schedule for appearance of Tenant on the date not later than ten days—Said notice was to be accompanied by the copies of Eviction application and documents annexed with the same—Rent Tribunal might proceed ex parte and pass any order if Tenant had failed to appear in spite of service—Tenant might apply for setting aside ex parte order along with application for leave to contest within ten days from the knowledge of the same—Tenant , in the present case, could not be served through ordinary mode of service and he had appeared in response to the proclamation which did not contain the condition that leave application was required to be filed within ten days—No notice as prescribed by law having been served upon the Tenant , Tenant could not be burdened with the consequences of mandatory provisions of subsections (2) and (6) of S.22 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 when no notice in the prescribed form accompanied by the copies of Eviction petition and documents annexed with the same was served upon him or was handed over to him while appearing before the Rent Tribunal —When law required a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done accordingly—If prescribed procedure was not followed, it would be presumed that same had not be done in accordance with law—Non- compliance of directory provisions of subsection (1) of S.21 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 amounted to denial of a statutory right of Tenant —Penalty of provisions of subsection (6) of S.21 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 could not be invoked in the event of such non-compliance of said statutory provisions—Mandatory provisions of law had been violated in the present case—Prescribed procedure had not been followed by the Rent Tribunal nor same was noticed by the Appellate Court—Impugned orders of both the courts below were set aside—Rent Tribunal was directed by High Court to decide application for leave to contest afresh and then to proceed further in accordance with law—Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.
Citation Name : 2013 SCMR 1520 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MIRZA BOOK AGENCY
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
Ss. 8, 9 & 15—Eviction petition—Time limit of 2 years stipulated under S.8 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 for a landlord/Tenant to bring a tenancy agreement in conformity with the provisions of the said Act—Mandatory—Depositing of fine by landlord/Tenant to bring the tenancy agreement in conformity with the said Act—Question as to whether a landlord/Tenant having an existing tenancy could approach the Rent Tribunal for enforcement of his rights under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, without depositing such fine on the basis that time period of 2 years provided under S. 8 of said Act had not lapsed—Landlord, in the present case, filed Eviction petition against Tenant (appellant) under S. 15 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Plea of Tenant was that there was an existing tenancy agreement between the parties, but the same had not been brought in conformity with the provisions of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 as required under S. 8 of the said Act, therefore Eviction petition of landlord could not be entertained in terms of S. 9 of the said Act without the landlord first paying the fine to the tune of ten per cent—Rent Tribunal discarded plea of Tenant and allowed the Eviction petition—Appeal and constitutional petition filed before High Court against order of Rent Tribunal were also dismissed—Validity—Provisions of S. 9 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 were mandatory not only vis-a-vis the future tenancies, but also with respect to existing tenancies—Where a landlord or Tenant moved the Rent Tribunal for the exercise of his right and enforcement of obligations of the opposite side in terms of provisions of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, notwithstanding that a period of two years was available under S. 8 of the said Act to bring the existing tenancies in conformity with the said Act, he was obliged to pay the fine/penalty under S. 9 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 at the time of filing the petition/application or as directed by the Rent Tribunal —Cases where applications/petitions (of the landlord or the Tenant ) had been entertained and were pending before the Rent Tribunal or had been finally adjudicated by the Tribunal and were pending in further hierarchy of appeal or in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court or even before the Supreme Court; and the original applicant/petitioner had not paid the fine which he was required to pay, such proceedings should be halted, and the original applicant/petitioner should first be directed to pay/deposit the amount of fine as per S. 9 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Amount of fine and the time for it should be exactly specified by the court seized of the matter in the requisite order, and in case of failure to pay such fine, the original application/petition should be dismissed—In the present case, however, pursuant to the Eviction order passed against the Tenant , possession of suit property had also been taken over by the landlord during pendency of the present appeal in the execution process, therefore, principle of past and closed transaction was applicable to the present case—Appeal of Tenant was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2013 MLD 371 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : CIVIL JUDGE/RENT TRIBUNAL, RAJANPUR
Ss. 2(b), 28 & 24—West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.15—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Constitutional petition—“Final order”—Connotation—Scope—Appeal against order of Rent Tribunal directing Tenant to deposit arrears of Rent with court under S.24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Maintainability—Landlord (petitioner) impugned order whereby landlord’s appeal against order of Rent Tribunal directing Tenant to pay arrears of Rent in court, was dismissed on the ground that same was against an interim order and was not maintainable—Validity—Prima facie, interim order to pay Rent may not be the final order as S. 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 provided that Tenant shall keep on paying the Rent till final order which may be one culminating in Eviction or in dismissal of ejectment petition—Section 24 of the Act had to be read along with S. 2(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009; and both sections should be read in juxtaposition and contradistinction to provisions of S.15 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959; provisions of which segregate an appealable order from all other orders by qualifying the former as the one finally disposing of an application under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959—“Final order” under S.2(b) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 included an order for arrears or Rent —Impugned order of Rent Tribunal directing Tenant to pay arrears of Rent was “final order” under S. 2(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and was therefore, appealable under S. 28 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Impugned orders were set aside—Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.
Citation Name : 2012 YLR 2293 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Syed BAHADURALI SHAH
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
S.5—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199–Constitutional petition—Ejectment of Tenant —Tenancy agreement, expiry of—Filing of civil suit—ConcurRent findings of fact by two courts below—Tenancy agreement had expired, when ejectment application was filed by landlady and Tenant had also filed civil suit against landlady regarding premises in question—Eviction order passed by Rent Tribunal was maintained by Lower Appellate Court—Validity—Tenant continued in Rented premises as Tenant , therefore, he was bound by terms and – conditions of earlier agreement executed between parties and Tenant could not seek any escape f ‘rain the tenancy—As execution of tenancy agreement was – not denied, therefore, filing of suit by Tenant was of no help to him, rather status of parties was governed by Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009—Landlady had been going from pillar to post for redressal of her grievance since year, 2008 but neither possession was restored to her nor any Rent had been paid by Tenant to her—Tenant failed to point out any illegality or perversity in Eviction orders qualifying interference by -High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction—Petition was dismissed in circumstances
