RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J. --- The petitioner has assalled the wires of order dated 14.7.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) Chakwal, whereby on ejectment petition filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner.Was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal whereby an appeal flled by him against the eviction order was dismissed. .
2. The respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner from the rented premises fully described in the head note of the petition. It was stated that the fixed period of tenancy had expired and the petitioner had also not paid the rent from September, 2009 tlll institution of the petition. The respondent flled the written reply, wherein he denied the allegations of default and violation of terms of tenancy. The learned Special Judge Rent, held that the petitioner had not paid the rent from September, 2009 tlll June 2010, and that the tenancy was not extended after 31.12.2007 so he was also liable for ejectment on expired of the fixed period of tenancy. The leave to contest the petition was refused and consequently an ejectment order was passed. The appeal filed by the petitioner .Was dismissed by the learned Additional. District Judge through the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Special Judge (Rent) had erred in disallowing the request for leave to contest because the petition was not flled in accordance with law. Notice was not issued to him on the prescribed proforma alongwith copy of application and documents nor it was sent through the modes mentioned in Section 21 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, so the penalty prescribed under Section 22(6) of the Act ibid was not warranted. It is also urged that existing tenancy was not brought in conformity with the provisions of Act so the petition could have not been entertained without deposit of fine under Section 9(b) of the Act ibid. In support of contentions raised reliance is placed on PLD 2009 Lahore 469.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner is enjoying the possession of the property without paying the rent from September, 2009 and had also re-occupied it lllegally after execution of warrant by the Balliff. It is urged that the written tenancy had expired on 31.12.2007 and it was not extended thereafter so the petitioner was liable for ejectment.
5. The copy of notice received by the petitioner has not been submitted. Admittedly he was served, flled the reply, was afforded an opportunity of hearing and thereafter the impugned order refusing the leave to contest and vacate the premises was passed against him.'He cannot therefore be allowed to say that he has not been served in accordance with law. The case-law cited at the bar is not applicable on the facts of this case. It is not denied that the rent from September, 2009 to date has not been paid. It is clear that the petitioner has been enjoying the benefit of occupation without paying the rent to the landlord. He has contumaciously violated the terms of tenancy and is defaulter pure and simple. The period of tenancy has also expired. The learned Special Judge (Rent), therefore was fully justified in passing the ejectment order against him. For the same reasons, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, does not suffer from any infirmity or lllegality. The case-law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable on the facts of the present case. It is contended that without payment of fine under Section 9(b) of the Act ibid, the ejectment petition could not have been entertained because the rent deed was not brought in conformity of provisions of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 or Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. The ejectment petition was flled on 21.5.2010. A cushion period of two years from the date of enforcement of the Act i.e. 17.11.2009 is provided under Section 8 in respect of the existing tenancies.
The payment of fine is a matter between the state and subject and it has to be levied strictly in accordance with law only if the penal provision is attracted. If the law gives a concession to the citizens then they have the right to get benefit of the same. Section 8 of the Punjab Rented Premises AO, 2009, clearly shows that a period of two years from the date of enforcement of Act was given for bringing the existing tenancies in conformity with the Act VII of 2009. Neither the penalty can be levied before 17.11.2001 for non-registration of the rent deed nor the ejectment petition can be rejected on this ground before the said date. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect is without force.
6. For the reasons supra, the writ petition is without merits and same is hereby dismissed with costs. .