' SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---Though the instant constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 6-5-2010, whereby the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore has ordered them to pay 10% of the annual value of the rent of the premises in question in accordance with section 9 (b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.
2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of lis in hand are that the petitioners' mother/Mrs. Naeema Khanum (since died on 1-1-2010) rented out a shop No,1, Mall Mansions, 30-Shahrah-i- Quaid-i-Azam,Lahore (hereinafter called the Rented Premises) to Muhammad Akram (predecessor-in-interest of present respondents Nos.1 to 9) for a period of one year and three months, vide Lease Agreement dated 16-1-1994. However, after the expiry of the said period of tenancy, the predecessorin-interest of the respondents Nos. 1 to 9 remained in possession as tenants. On promulgation of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, the petitioners' predecessor issued a notice dated 30-4-2009, under section 8 of the Ordinance ibid, to the respondents' predecessor-ininterest for renewal of tenancy and to bring the same in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance ibid but without response. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an ejectment application againg respondents Nos.1 to 9 on 5-5-2010 wherein Special Judge (Rent), Lahore directed the petitioners to deposit fine equivalent to 10% of the annual rent of the demised premises, vide order dated 6-5-2010 in view of section 9(b) of the Punjab Rent Premises Act, 2009.
3. Despite service through ordinary as well as courier service, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. Even otherwise, the impugned order is not against respondents and only the vires of the said order qua application of sections 8 and 9 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 has been assailed through this constitutional petition.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction as it has been passed without considering section 8 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, which provided a period of two years to an existing landlord and tenant to bring his tenancy in conformity with the provisions of Act ibid. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Special Judge (Rent) did not consider the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 conjunctively. He argued that the purpose of providing two years period in section 8 would be defeated, in case the provisions of section 9 of the Act ibid are applied to the tenancies which existed prior to the promulgation of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 and the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 respectively. He also argued that the effect of section 9 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 would only come into play, if a tenancy agreement is entered into after promulgation of the Act and the same has not been registered under section 5 of the Act ibid or it was in existence at the time of promulgation of the Act ibid and has not been brought in conformity with the provisions of the Act within two years of coming into field of the Act.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Rent law in the Province of Punjab was completely revised by the Legislature and new concepts have been introduced through the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, which was promulgated on 16 November, 2007 and was later replaced by the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, which came into force on 17 November, 2009.
7. Section 5 of the Act ibid, is most important, which deals with agreement between landlord and tenant and it has been made compulsory that the agreement of tenancy shall be in writing and be presented before Rent Registrar, who shall enter the particulars of the tenancy agreement in a register and affix his official seal on tenancy agreement in a register and affix his official seal on tenancy agreement, retain a copy thereof and return the original agreement to the landlord.
8. A careful perusal of the Act ibid indicates that Legislature in its wisdom dealt with the question as to how a tenancy, which existed at the time of promulgation of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 would be governed. Section 8 of the Act ibid provides the manner in which the existing tenancies are to be dealt with, as under:- "Section 8. Existing Tenancy.--An existing landlord and tenant shall, as soon as possible but not later than two years from the date of coming into force of this Act, bring the tenancy in conformity with the provisions of this Act."
' A bare reading of aforequoted section 8 of the Act ibid makes it amply clear that two years time period was granted to the parties of existing tenancies to bring their tenancies in conformity with the provisions of the Act ibid i,e, reduce it in writing and cause its particular to be entered in a register maintained by the Rent Register in accordance with section 5 of the Act ibid.
9. Section 9 of the Act ibid deals with the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of the said Act by the parties. It would be advantageous to reproduce hereunder section 9 of the Act ibid:-- "Section 9. Effect of non-compliance.--If a tenancy does not conform to the provisions of this Act, the Rent Tribunal shall not entertain an application under this Act:-
(a) on behalf of the tenant, unless he deposits a fine equivalent to five per cent of the annual value of the rent of the premises in the Government treasury; and
(b) on behalf of the landlord, unless he deposits a fine equivalent to ten per cent of the annual value of the rent of the premises in the Government treasury."
However, while applying penal effects of non-compliance of section 9 to the parties, the scheme of the statute must be kept in mind. As a matter of fact, there are two types of tenancies, which have been visualized and dealt with by the Legislature at the time of promulgation of the Ordinance (XXI of 2007) as well as Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. Firstly, those tenancies, which came into existence after the promulgation of the Ordinance/Act ibid, and in that case, section 9 is to be applied in the light of section 5 thereof. The second type of tenancies are those which were in existence at the time of the promulgation of the Ordinance ibid and Act ibid, for which, the effect of non-conformity as envisaged under section 9 is to be examined in the light of section 8. For this purpose, sections 8 and 9 of the Act ibid has to be read together, and a conjunctive reading of the two provisions makes it abundantly clear A that in the initial two years of the promulgation of the Ordinance/Act, penal provisions of section 9 could not be enforced for an existing tenancy. The penal effect of section 9 in case of tenancies falling under section 8 has to be applied after the expiry of initial two years period mentioned therein. Otherwise, section 8, which is a beneficial provision, would become meaningless. Here, it is worth mentioning that Ordinance ibid remained in field for two years with effect from 16 November, 2007 and was repealed by coming into force of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 on 17 November, 2009. Section 8 of the repealed Ordinance (XXI of 2007) has been retained in verbatim/ditto by the Act ibid, which means that Legislature intended to further provide two years grace period, to existing tenancies, so that the same could be brought in conformity with the Act ibid, and the said period would come to an end on 16-11-2011.
10. A statute is a formal expression in writing of the will of the legislative organ of the State. By virtue of section 8 of the Act ibid, Legislature has provided a benefit to the existing tenancies. It is a settled principle of interpretation of statutes that a beneficial legislation has to be construed liberally.
Further, where it is possible without doing any violence to the language of the statute, a beneficial construction may be adopted, while interpreting a statute which infringes upon the right of a citizen or a party as held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Rehman v.
Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1995 SC 546). Similarly, various provisions of an Act have to be read together and not in isolation thereof as held in case cited as Asim Qureshi, Chief Editor, Haftroza Roshan, Gujranwala v. Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari, President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (PLD 1999 Lahore 76).
11. The crux of the above discussion and observations is that all the provisions on sections of a statute must be read conjunctively and as a whole for determining their real scope. As far as the case of the present petitioners is concerned, the same fell squarely within the purview of section 8 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and they could not have been ordered to deposit 10% of the annual rent value of the premises in dispute by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore prior to the expiry of the period of two years w,e,f, 17-11-2009. Consequently, it is held that all the tenancies, which existed prior to the coming into force of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 are to be dealt with in accordance with section 8 while applying section 9 of the Act ibid. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 6-5-2010, passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore, being in contravention of section 8 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, is declared to be illegal and set-aside. The instant petition is, accordingly allowed.