' SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,2 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner on 17-11-2009 under the Punjab Rented Premise Act, 2009 (Act) on the basis of an "ORAL EXISTING TENANCY". The petitioner filed leave to contest on 5-12-2009 and vide order dated 21-12-2009 learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore dismissed the leave to contest of the petitioner and ordered eviction of petitioner from the demised premises. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. District Judge, Lahore on 9-1-2010. During the pendency of the said appeal petitioner preferred an application on 17-2-2010 for dismissal of the ejectment petition contending that under section 9(b) of the Act the ejectment petition was not entertainable without the deposit of fine @ 10% of the annual value of rent of the premises. The said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 30-6-2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No,2 has failed to comply with the provisions of section 9(b) of the Act. It is contended that section 9(b) of the Act provides a pre-condition and the ejectment petition could not have been entertained without the said deposit. It is further contended that subsequent deposit of the said penalty does not cure the defect. Therefore, the ejectment petition and the proceedings thereunder are a nullity in the eyes of law. Counsel has placed reliance on Muhammad Usman and another v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 2010 Lahore 281), Muhammad Fiaz and another v. Ch. Yaqoob Hussain and another (PLD 2010 Lahore 197) and Messrs Wateen Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Attorney v. Malik Abdul Ahad and 2 others (PLD 2009 Lahore 429) in support of his above contentions.
3. On the other hand, respondent No,2 submits that he voluntarily made an application for the deposit of the penalty in order to end the controversy and deposited the penalty under section 9(b) of the Act in compliance of order dated 6-2-2010 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore and this has also been recorded in the order dated 17-2-2010 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore. Respondent No,2 contends that the compliance of section 9(b) of the Act has taken place and, therefore, the impugned order is justified under the law. Respondent No,2 further contends that sections 8 and 9 of the Act are co-related and the period of two years is available to existing tenancy and; therefore, section 9 (b) of the Act does not apply to the case of respondent No,2, but still respondent No,2 has deposited the penalty in order to put an end to this controversy so that the main case can be concluded. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Fiaz and another v. Ch. Yaqoob Hussain and another, (PLD 2010 Lahore 197) and Majid Khan through Special Attorney and 2 others v. Mst. Naseem Bibi and 9 others, (PLD 2010 Lahore 389).
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as the case-law cited at the bar.
5. Leave to contest filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits vide order dated 21-12-2009 by the learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore. On the question of entertainment of application under section 9(b) of the Act, the same was rejected on the ground that section 8 was applicable to the case as the matter pertained to "ORAL EXISTING TENANCY" and the comfort period provided in section 8 of the Act was available to the petitioner and thus there was no requirement of paying the fine.
6. After filing of the appeal the petitioner moved an application for the rejection of the appeal on the ground of non-deposit of fine under section 9(b) of the Act. Prior to the filing of the said application, respondent No,2 voluntarily deposited the fine in compliance of order dated 6-2-2010 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore in order to put an end to the objection raised.
7. The following question arises in the instant petition:- Whether the benefit of section 8 of the Act is available to an Oral Existing Tenancy and, therefore, section 9(b) of the Act is applicable for a period of three years from the date of the coming into force of the Act i.e. 17-11-2009?
8. This matter has now been settled in two judgments delivered by this Court. In Majid Khan through Special Attorney and 2 others v. Mst. Naseem Bibi and 9 others (PLD 2010 Lahore 389) Sh. Ahmad Farooq, J. While discussing the case of "ORAL EXISTING TENANCY held that section 8 of the Act is applicable and, therefore, the comfort period of two years was available to the landlord and hence section 9 (b) of the Act was not applicable during the said period of two yeaRs, This view has been confirmed in my judgment given in Muhammad Usman and another v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others, (PLD 2010 Lahore 281) where in para-18 I held that the comfort period provided in section 8 of the Punjab) Rented' Premises Ordinance 2007 is applicable to the oral tenancies. As the language of the "Ordinance" and the "Act" on these sections is the same, therefore, the aforesaid judgment fully applies to the Act also. Therefore, there is no conflict between the two judgments. The final picture that emerges is that provision of section 8 is applicable to "ORAL EXISTING TENANCY" only but not to "WRITTEN EXISTING TENANCY". The present case pertains to "ORAL EXISTING TENANCY", therefore, the respondent/landlord was entitled to the benefit of the comfort period provided in section 8 of the Act.
9. It is also clarified that earlier judgment of this Cpurt in Messrs Wateen Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Attorney v. Malik Abdul Ahad and 2 others, (PLD Lahore 429) pertains to written tenancy executed after the promulgation of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and, therefore, the said case does not pertain to "EXISTING TENANCY" or "ORAL EXISTING TENANCY" and has no application to the present case.
10. The second contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the fine could not have been deposited at the appellate stage loses significance when section 9 (b) is not applicable to the case of respondent No,2. Therefore, nothing turns on the said deposit of penalty voluntarily made by respondent No,2 in this case.
11. The opinion Of this Court is restricted to the legal requirement of deposit of fine by respondent No,2 and has no bearing on the merits of the case.
12. For the above reasons, I see no illegality in impugned order dated 30-6-2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, it is, therefore, maintained. This petition having no force is, therefore, dismissed.