' ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.--Brief facts of the case are that on 17-3-2010 the respondent filed an ejectment petition under section 15 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 against the petitioner/ tenant for his eviction from Property bearing No,12 known as Malik Din Muhammad Chambers, Kabir Street, Urdu Bazar, Lahore on the ground of default in payment of rent and expiry of the period of tenancy. The application for leave to contest was refused vide order dated 26-10-2010. The ejectment petition was accepted by the Special Judge (Rent), Lahore and the petitioner/tenant was directed to vacate the premises within one month. The petitioner/ tenant filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed vide judgment dated 22-8-2011, hence this petition.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the landlord asserted three different kinds of tenancy. It is submitted that the first tenancy was for a period of 11 months vide rent deed dated 16-11-1993 and after the expiry of 11 months, period of tenancy was extended from time to time at the enhanced rate of rent and that the respondent/landlord did not specify the period of each extension of the tenancy. It is submitted that since it was a tenancy at will, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to demand the payment of rent rather he could claim compensation for use and occupation of the demised premises. He lastly submits that Special Judge (Rent), Lahore has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
3. Conversely, counsel for the respondents submits that the points raised before this Court were neither taken in the application for leave to contest nor in the memo of appeal and counsel for the petitioner has made on attempt to make a new case, thus, this petition is not maintainable.
4. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been perused.
5. All the points raised by the petitioner today were neither taken in the application for leave to contest nor in the memo of appeal and counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that the petitioner has tried to introduce a new case. The petitioner has made a prayer for leave to contest as according to him he has paid a huge amount as Pagri but he could not place any material on the file to substantiate the same. In the written rent deed dated 16-11-1993 there is no mention of payment of any Pagri and the contents of the same have not been disputed by the petitioner/tenant. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. This petition has no merit, hence the same is dismissed.