MOHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.--- This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 10.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad dismissing the appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Islamabad dated 21.12.2004.
2. The landlord/respondent No. 3 filed eviction application on 9.3.2002 against the petitioner under The Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 from a house situate in Islamabad. It was averred in the plaint that the house in question was leased to petitioner for two years vide lease agreement dated 7.11.2001. The monthly rent for the first year was agreed as Rs. 30,000/- and for the second year as Rs. 32,000/-. The tenancy expired on 6.11.2003. The petitioner/tenant was served a notice requiring him to vacate the demised premises. The petitioner was also a defaulter in the payment of rental and utility bills and that the same was required for personal bona fide need. The eviction application was resisted denying all the allegations. It was specifically stated that the attorney of the respondent/landlord had declined to receive the rent as such the same was deposited with the Rent Controller. Out of the pleadings of the parries following issues were framed:---
(1) Whether the lease agreement has expired and has not been further extended for which the respondent is liable to be ejected? OPA
(2) Whether the respondent is defaulter of rent and utility bills? OPA
(3) Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present form? OPR
(4) Whether the petition is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with special costs? OPR
(5) Whether the petitioner is estopped by his words and conduct to file the instant petition? OPR
(6) Relief.
The evidence of the landlord/respondent was recorded. The petitioner was provided three opportunities for adducing his evidence but he failed to do so, eventually his evidence was closed and his ejectment was ordered vide order dated 21.12.2004. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 10.2.2005 by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the default in the payment of rent was not proved and the issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the petitioner, notwithstanding, the Rent Controller proceeded to accept the eviction application and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days on the ground of expiry of the lease period and personal bona fide need.
Learned counsel urged that no issue was framed by the learned Rent Controller on the question of personal bona fide need. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the lease period expired on 6.11.2003 and under Section 6 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 no tenancy shall be valid beyond the agreed period and that the premises were required for personal bona fide need of the respondent.
4. I have gone through the impugned judgments, perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 6 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 reads as under:- "6. Tenure of tenancy:--- Subject to the provisions of section 17, no tenancy shall be valid beyond such period as the landlord and tenant may, by mutual agreement, fix before or after the .
Commencement of the tenancy: Provided that a tenancy in force before the commencement of this Ordinance for which no period is fixed shall cease to be valid on the expiration of a period of two years from such commencement.
Provided further that a tenancy which comes into force after the commencement of this Ordinance and for which no period is fixed shall not be valid after expiration of period of six months from the date of the receipt by the tenant of a notice in writing given by the landlord terminating the tenancy."
The reading of the above Section shows that it is subject to the provisions of Section 17 of the Ordinance of 2001. Under Section 17 of the same Ordinance "a tenant in possession of building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom except in accordance with the provisions of this section."
The relevant portion of Section 17 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 is reproduced as under:---
17. Eviction of tenant.--- (1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted..
Therefrom except in accordance with provisions of this Section.
(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that--
(i) the tenant has not paid or tendered rent due by him in respect of the building or rented land, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord, or in the absence of any such agreement within sixty days from the period for which the rent is payable; or
(ii) the tenant has without the written consent of the landlord:---
(a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof; or
(b) used the building or rented land for purpose other than that for which it was leased or has infringed any conditions on which the building or rented land is held;
(iii) The tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land; or
(iv) The tenant has indulged in activities as or causing nuisance to the neighbours; Or
(v) The building or rented land is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for the reconstruction or erection of a building or the landlord has obtained the necessary sanction for the said reconstruction from the authority: Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or the rented land or may extend such time so as not exceed three months in the aggregate."
(3) If, the Controller is not satisfied as provided in sub-section (2), he shall make an order rejecting the application.
(4) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession:---
(a) in the case of residential building, if he requires it in good faith for his own occupation or of any member of his family and he or any mernber of his family , as the case may be, is not occupying any other residential building suitable for his needs at the time in the urban area:--- Provided that he or the said member of his family has not vacated such building in the Islamabad Capital Territory without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Ordinance; and
(b) in the case of a commercial building or rented land, if he requires it in good faith for his own use or for the use of any member of his family Provided that where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this sub-section before the expiry of such period: Provided further that where the landlord has obtained possession of a residential or commercial building or rented land under clause (a) or clause (b) he shall not be entitled to apply again under the said clauses for the possession of any other building or rented land unless the building or rented land of which he had previously taken possession has become unsustainable for his needs.
(5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
There is no ambiguity in the said Section, sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Ordinance, is in the negative form and enjoins that "a tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom except in accordance with the provisions of this section." The landlord can apply for eviction of the tenant on the grounds enumerated therein. Under sub-section (4) which is also relevant in the instant case a landlord may apply to the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant on the ground that ,he requires it in good faith for his own occupation or of any member of his family.
The expression 'tenant' has been defined in Section 2(i) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 and is reproduced as under:---
(i) "tenant" means any person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of a building or rented land by him or by any other person on his behalf, and includes,---
(i) any person who continues to be in possession or occupation after the termination of his tenancy; and
(ii) in the event of the death of the tenant, the members of his family who continues to be in possession or occupation of the building or rented land."
'Tenant' includes any person who continues to be in possession or occupation of the premises after termination of his tenancy.
The tenant will continue to fall within the definition of 'tenant' who continues to remain in possession even after the termination of tenancy. The ejectment of the 'tenant' (as defined in Section 2(i) of the Ordinance can be sought only on the grounds given in Section 17 of the Ordinance of 2001. There is nothing in the provisions of Section 17 to show that the tenant can be ordered to be ejected from a residential building merely on the ground of expiry of the lease period.
Section 6 of the Ordinance is not the overriding Section, it is subject to Section 17 of the Ordinance. It merely states that the tenancy shall not be valid beyond such period as the landlord and tenant may by mutual agreement fix before or after the commencement of the tenancy. In my view after the expiry of the agreed period between the landlord and tenant the tenancy is not valid and the same will not be governed by the terms and conditions of the previous tenancy agreement but it does not mean that a tenant who continues to be in possession or . Occupation after the expiry of the period will be subjected to ejectment on the ground which does not find mention in Section 17 of the Ordinance of 2001. The ejectment of the petitioner can be sought only on the grounds enumerated in Section 17 of the Ordinance. The Rent Restriction Laws are generally made for the protection of the tenant. If the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted that after expiry of the lease period the tenant is to be evicted, the provisions of Section 17 of The Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 shall have to be amended. Previously the matter was covered by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 111 of the Act of 1882 gives eight grounds on which the tenancy determines. Under sub-section (a) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act lease determines by efflux of time limited thereby. The preamble to the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 shows that the Ordinance was enacted by the legislature in order to "regulate the relations between the landlords and tenants of rented premises in Islamabad Capital Territory and to provide for matters ancillary thereto or connected therewith." The Rent Restriction Ordinance being a special law will prevail over the Ordinary law. The eviction of the tenant on the ground of efflux of time cannot be read into the Section 17 of the Ordinance. Being to provision in Section 17 of the Ordinance of 2001 for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of expiry of the tenancy, the ejectment of the tenant cannot ordered. The general rule is that the Court can neither add to or delete any words from any Section of a statute. A Court must import in a statute neither anything more nor anything less than what the language clearly indicates. It is not the function of the Court to read into an enactment words that are not there. The mere fact that the language of a Section in an Act is not happy or appropriate would not justify the Court in adopting an interpretation which leads to anomalous results and frustrates the very object of the statute. The provisions of Section 17 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance are clear and unambiguous and cannot be given an effect not contemplated by the Act.
The issue of default in the payment of rent was decided in favour of the petitioner. No issue was framed on the personal bona fide need of the landlord nor the Tribunals below discussed any evidence produced by the landlord on this fact.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that this Constitutional petition succeeds.The impugned orders dated 21.12.2004 and 10.2.2005 are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Resultantly the eviction application of the respondent/landlord stands dismissed. .