' SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.--- This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against an order dated 1.5-10-2010 passed by Mr. Muhammad Musharaf Hassan Sumra, the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby an order dated 11-11-2009 passed by Mr. Zahid Hussain Bakhtiar, the learned Special Judge Rent Lahore, dismissing the application seeking leave to defend the ejectment petition was dismissed and the ejectment petition was accepted.
2. The facts, leading to the instant constitutional petition briefly stated, are that Atiq-ur-Rehman and 5 others instituted a petition under section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rented Premises Ordinance No, XXI of 2007 against M/s. Bata Pakistan Limited seeking its ejectment from the premises on the ground of the expiry of the written agreement and default in the payment of rent for the month of April and May, 2008. It has been averred in the petition that the shop in dispute was rented out to the respondent on the basis of an agreement executed on 1st April, 2005 tor 3 years till 31-3-2008 at the rate of Rs,65,000 per month. It was a clause of an agreement that the period of 3 years could be extended further with the mutual consent of the parties. It is the stand of the ejectment petitioner that the rent agreement was never extended after 31-3-2008 and that the respondent did not pay the rent for the month of April and May, 2008, as such, it is liable to be ejected from the rented premises.
3. In the leave application filed under section 22 of the Ordinance it was alleged that the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 lived for three months whereafter it was never extended, as such, after the expiry of the Ordinance, Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 shall govern the proceedings of the petition. It was further asserted in the leave application that the period of three years with effect from 1-4-2008 was orally extended and that company did not commit any default in the payment of rent as the same was sent through money order.
4. In the second round of litigation the learned Special Judge Rent, did not find, these grounds as asserted in the leave application, sufficient to grant leave to defend the ejectment petition, as such, vide order dated 11-11-2009, dismissed and the tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the ejectment petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by this decision an appeal was preferred before the learned First Appellate Court, which also concurred with the observation of the learned Special Judge Rent vide the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
In the instant constitutional petition the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below have been assailed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this court to the very existence of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 and submitted that the Ordinance ibid had been declared invalid by the apex Court in a reported judgment PLD 2009 SC 789 and granted the period of 90 days for re- enacting the law. He further submitted that till the reenacting the new law the old law i.e. Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 shall govern the proceedings in the instant petition and in this connection, he has taken the benefit of section 3 of General Clauses Act, 1956. He has also asserted that section 36 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 is ultra vires to the provisions of Article 264 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the agreement last till 31-3-2008 was orally extended by both the parties and, the petitioner is depositing the enhanced rent thereafter. Lastly it is submitted that the petitioner is running its business at a very busy place i.e. Chowk Yateemkhana Lahore for the last 42 years and has invested huge amount on the renovation of its business, therefore, if the court does not agree with the proposition urged in this petition, the period for three years may be granted for the vacation of the premises.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent in answer to- the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the legal implications as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the fate of the Ordinance, 2007 has been covered by section 36 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. The counsel is not ready to give the period of three years for the vacation of the rented premises. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, has supported the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below.
7. Anxious thoughts have been given to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the record has been gone through. So far as the existence of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, is concerned, suffice it would to say that it is the matter of common knowledge that at the time of promulgation of the Ordinance, 2007 country was under state of emergency due to which the operation of Constitution of Islamic Republic of. Pakistan, 1973 was held in abeyance.
Tins situation was dealt with by the Apex Court in its judgment reported as. PLD 2009 SC 789; that is why the period of 90 days was granted for reconsidering and re-enacting many Ordinances issued under the proclamation of emergency. Moreover, section 36 of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2009 has provided the protection to all the proceedings initiated under the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, thus, the submissions that old law would prevail and govern the instant case is in any manner not acceptable. The submissions of the counsel that period of three years was further extended orally by the parties is equally has no force for the simple reason that the petitioner is a limited Company as asserted by the petitioner in Para 1 of this petition, as such, it cannot be presumed that public limited company had orally agreed to, extend the period of lease for another three yeaRs, When the first lease was in written form then the extension should also be in the same manner and cannot be extended orally by any stretch of imagination. The default in the payment of rent for the month of April and May has also been established on record as the petitioner did not place thereon any such proof that the rent for these two months had been paid or tendered in the manner prescribed by law to the land lord. In these circumstances both the courts below were justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend the ejectment petition.
8. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition bereft of the merit is dismissed. Since the petitioner is a public limited company running a store at a busy place, therefore, this court on equitable ground deems fit aria essential to direct they petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within three months and shall pay the rent to the respondent during this period.