' SHAUKAT UMAR PIRZADA, J.---This Writ Petition has been directed against the order dated 2-4-2010 passed by learned Addl: District Judge, Sahiwal, whereby the appeal of respondent No,2 was accepted and the ejectment order dated 9-12-2009 was set aside.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that on 1-10-2009 the petitioner filed ejectment petition against respondent No,2 for seeking his eviction from the shop in question situated in Fish Market, Sahiwal, which was rented out to respondent No,2 vide rent agreement dated 18-2-2006 for the period commencing from 1-1-2006 to 30-6-2007 at a monthly rent of Rs,5,000. The grounds for seeking ejectment were default and expiry of the tenancy period. This ejectment petition was opposed by respondent No,2 through filing application under section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises for, leave to contest. The said application was resisted by the petitioner, but was allowed on 5-11-2009 with the direction to respondent No,2 to deposit past rent within one month and future on the 5th of each month at the rate of Rs,5000 per month. Respondent No,2 failed to deposit the rent in compliance of the order dated 5-11-2009 of the learned Rent Tribunal and consequently respondent No,2 was directed to vacate the shop in question within one month vide order dated 9- 12-2009. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No,2 preferred appeal, which was accepted and the impugned order dated 9-12-2009 was set aside and the case was remanded to the learned Rent Tribunal, hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the learned Lower Appellate Court has acted illegally while wrongly holding that the period for bringing the tenancy agreement in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 has expired on 16-11- 2009, as in fact, this period stood automatically extended by section 8 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, which was promulgated on 17-11-2009, therefore, the ejectment petition was maintainable and only an amount of 10% of the annual value of the rent is to be deposited in the Government Treasury, which was the duty of the court to note and then order for such deposit, that has not been done in the instant case. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be held responsible exclusively for the non-compliance of section 9 of the Act ibid. He has contended that the order of the learned Rent Tribunal dated 9-12-2009 is legal and be restored.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 has controverted the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the impugned order of the learned lower appellate court is in accordance with law and has supported the same.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. A careful perusal of the order dated 2-4-2010 passed by the learned Addl: District Judge, reveals that the ejectment order dated 9-12-2009 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal has been set aside on the ground that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of the relevant provision of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, whereby the petitioner was obliged to bring the tenancy agreement in conformity with provisions of the said Ordinance within the prescribed period, which expired on 16-11-2009 and that the petitioner has not paid 10% of the annual value of the rent with the Government Treasury. The findings of the learned lower appellate court are erroneous for the reason that the Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 was elapsed and was replaced by the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and Section 8 thereof is relevant, which reads as follows:-- "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."
' In view of the aforementioned provisions of law, the period given for bringing the tenancy agreement in conformity with the provisions of the Act stood extended for another two years till 16- 9-2011, therefore, the ejectment petition was rightly entertained by the learned Rent Tribunal.
However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not exclusively responsible for non-deposit of 10% of the annual value of the rent in the Government Treasury, is not without substance. The learned Rent Tribunal should have taken notice of this deficiency and should not have issued process till the deposit of the said amount in the Government Treasury. The impugned order of the learned lower appellate court is not sustainable also for the reason that if it is allowed to remain in the field, it would amount to rewarding respondent No,2 for his non- compliance to the order dated 5-11-2009 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal as he failed to deposit the rent in terms thereof. In fact the amount equivalent to 10% of the annual value of rent is a penalty on the landlord for not bringing the tenancy agreement in conformity with the provisions of the Act and non-deposit of the same in the Government Treasury by the petitioner is an omission on his part as also on the part of the learned Rent Tribunal that has not taken notice thereof before issuing the process, therefore, rectifiable in the circumstances of the instant case.
Ever otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioner is ready to deposit the said amount in the Government Treasury. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 has failed to offer any justification for non-compliance of the order dated 5-11-2009, therefore, not entitled for any concession.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order dated 2-4-2010 passed by the learned Addl: District Judge, Sahiwal is set aside and order dated 9-12-2009 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sahiwal is restored, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the annual value of the' rent in the Government Treasury within one month, otherwise, the ejectment petition shall stand dismissed.