MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.--- Civil Revisions Nos.1670 and 1671 of 2003 are between the same parties, involve the same law and facts and arise out of the same order of the first appellate Court. This judgment shall therefore, deal with and decide both the above said civil revisions.
2. The petitioners have called in question the order, dated 2-4-2003 of the learned trial Court accepting respondent's application for temporary injunction and order, dated 5-6-2003 of the Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissing the appeal of the petitioners thereagainst.
3. The respondent having been admittedly granted 10 years lease from 1-2-1987 to 31-1-1997 of the stall at Bagh-e-Jinnah, Lahore enjoyed the term. As per the respondent/plaintiff, his lease was extended for a period of further 10 years from 1-2-1997 to 31-1-2007. The petitioners in the memo. Of civil revision as well as in the memo. Of appeal before the learned first appellate Court claimed that this extension of lease for another ten years was manoeuvred by the respondent/ plaintiff. And that the petitioner No.3 initially increased the rent and claimed the same from the respondent though this increase was nqt approved by the petitioner No.1. And that subsequently, the lease was cancelled and vacation of the canteen by 31-12-1999 was demanded. The respondent thus filed two suits to challenge the above actions. The suits were later consolidated. The interim injunction granted by the learned trial Judge was confirmed through order, dated 2-4-2003. The petitioners appeal thereagainst was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore through order, dated 5-6-2003. Hence, the civil revisions.
4. The learned A.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that 10 years extension of lease as claimed by the respondent/plaintiff was managed by him in connivance with the officers of the petitioners and that the respondent/plaintiff was also a defaulter wherefor the lease was properly cancelled by the petitioner No.3 on the instructions of petitioner No.1. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff was not entitled to the grant of temporary injunction.
5. Having heard the learned A.A.-G. This Court does not find any material in the civil revisions. It has not been denied that initially the respondent/plaintiff was granted lease of the canteen for a period of ten years from 1-2-1987 to 31-1-1997 at the rate of Rs.2,500 to be progressively increased by 25% after each 2-1/2 years under the terms of the lease. It is also not being denied by the petitioners that order for extension of the lease from 1-2-1997 to 31-1-2007 was made. The main stay of the case of the petitioners is that such extension was manoeuvred and managed by the respondent/plaintiff. This of course is a question of evidence as to whether the extension of lease was competently granted or not. It has also been denied that the lease money amounting to Rs.15,260 was deposited by the respondent/plaintiff with the defendants and receipt No.44, dated 3-12-1996 was issued by the petitioners. Again the respondent/plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.60,000 through receipt No.54, dated 8-12-1999. The respondent claimed to have paid this amount as the advance lease money upto December, 2003 though the case of the petitioners was that the lease money so paid by the respondent covered period up to 31-12-1999. In para. 5 of the memo. Of the civil revision the petitioners have admitted deposit of Rs.60,000 by the respondent with the Superintendent, Bagh-e-Jinnah, Lahore and also the factum of issuance of receipt No.54, dated 8-12-1999. As per the petitioners, the said Rs.60,000 was the amount of increased rent received on decision, dated 17-6-1999 of the Advisory Sub-Committee of Bagh-'e-Jinnah. In the same para. The petitioners admitted that "the respondent/ plaintiff once again with his own free consent and will deposited Rs.2,00,000 during the pendency of the suit vide receipt No.92/24 dated 22-3-2002. In paras.6 and 7 of the memo. Of the civil revision the petitioners admit that the increase of rent was disapproved by the petitioner No.1. i.e. Secretary, Agriculture, Government of the Punjab, who directed a fresh tender.
6. The petitioners thus, admit to have received the amount of Rs.60,000 and then a sum of Rs.2,00,000 from the respondent under the disapproved recommendation of the Advisory Sub- Committee of Bagh-e-Jinnah for the increase of rent. It would thus, be a question of evidence as to how can the petitioners on rejection of proposal of the increase of rent by the Secretary reconcile the receipt of the above said amounts from the respondent who prima facie does not appear to be wrong in claiming adjustment of the rent under the terms of the extended lease. The respondent thus, does not appear to be a defaulter. The petitioners have yet to prove that it was on the basis of default or the managed extension that the powers of cancellation of the lease contract were competently invoked by the petitioners. The petitioners also have to show that the respondent at the time of purported order of cancellation of the lease was either notified or heard. In the absence of an opportunity of explanation or show-cause notice, the unilateral action of cancellation of lease or of the enhancement of rent would prima facie be exposed to the legal challenge.
7. Under the above explained circumstances the respondent having an order of extension in his favour and also having paid huge sums of money to the petitioners, has a prima facie case and if dispossessed, the respondent will suffer an irreparable loss. To protect the respondent from undue interference or dispossession, the balance of inconvenience also tilts in favour of the grant of temporary injunction. In view of the above this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The civil revision petitions are thus, dismissed being without substance. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.