ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the orders dated 5.12.2012 and 25.6.2013 passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively, whereby the application for leave to contest filed by the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner was directed to vacate the shop within one month with the further direction to pay rent for one year, i.e. From January, 2012 to December, 2012 at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that respondents No. 3 and 4 filed an ejectment petition under Section 19 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 20Q9 on the ground that they are the owners of the rented shop on the basis of a gift-deed dated 5.1.2012 executed by Muhammad Tahir, their father, and that rent deed was executed by him on 22.3.2008 for a period of_two years, i.e. 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2009 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-per month, besides a security of Rs.
20,000/-. On the expiry of period of tenancy on 31.12.2009 the same was extended verbally for two years, i.e. From 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2011 at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month. It was further averred that since December, 2011, the rent was not being paid and as such, the petitioner committed the default. A ground of personal need was also agitated in the petition. Consequently, the said petition was entertained on 25.5.2012 and the summonses were issued to the petitioner.
3. The order-sheet dated 28.6.2012 reflects that the petitioner was marked present, whereafter the case was adjourned to 14.7.2012. However, on the said date, the Wakalat Narna was shown to have been filed and the case was adjourned to 23.7.2012. On the said date, the petitioner filed an application for leave to contest stating that on 14.7.2012, he was not served and that he never remained tenant under Muhammad Tahir and thereafter by the said respondents. It was further asserted in the application that the petitioner was the tenant of Muhammad Shoaib and that he has been paying rent regularly to him. The application was contested for filing a reply, whereafter on 5.12.2012 the application for leave to contest was rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal who vide impugned order allowed the ejectment petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge/respondent No. 2, who on 25.6.2013 dismissed the same in limine on the same grounds, as mentioned in the order dated 5.12.2012. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders were passed without lawful authority and without jurisdiction; that no notice of transfer of ownership of the rented premises was given to the petitioner under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009; that the requirements to summon the petitioner through Processs Server, the registered post A.D. And the courier service simultaneously were not complied with in accordance with Section 21(1) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009; that no copy of the petition alongwith Annexures was delivered to the petitioner as required under Section 21(2) ibid; that the petitioner never appeared before the Rent Tribunal and, therefore, was never delivered any copy of the petition or documents to calculate the period of ten days for filing an application for leave to contest; that the Rent Tribunal could not announce a formal order under Section 22(6) ibid without .
Following the required procedure. Place reliance upon the cases of Younas Siddique v. Mst. Tahira Jabeen [PLD 2009 Lahore 469] and Babar All v. Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 2 others [2012 YLR 2933].
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record.
6. A perusal of paragraph No. 9 of the application for leave to contest filed by the petitioner on 23.7.2012 reveals that the petitioner claimed to be the tenant under Muhammad Shoaib and not under Muhammad Tahir and that an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was filed on behalf of the former, which fact was denied by the respondent in his reply. A perusal of the file further reveals that the rent deed was for the period from 1.1.2008 to 31.12.2009 between the petitioner and said Muhammad Tahir. No receipt or any document was shown to prima facie establish that the petitioner was tenant under Muhammad Shoaib. The, relationship of petitioner with the predecessor of respondents No. 2 and 3 is established and there was no plausible defence put up on the part of the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal. Additionally, the order dated 28.6.2012 reveals that the petitioner was marked present on the order-sheet after having been legally served, whereafter he was required to file the application for leave to contest within seven days. As required under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 but he filed the application on 23.7.2012. The mandatory provisions were not complied with. The c. 1,R. judgments cited at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case as there is no prima facie defence to offer. The interim order dated 6.6.2012 reflects that the petitioner was summoned personally in response to the notice registered A.D. Issued to him. Even otherwise, the report of the Process Server duly mentions the fact that the petitioner was served personally.
7. In this view of the matter, this petition has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. .