ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bahawalpur, whereby application for leave to defend filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that father of the petitioner transferred the residential plot No. 44-BK, Satellite Town, Bahawalpur on 17.03.2010. This was already rented out to respondent No. 2 vide lease agreement dated 02.05.2002. Respondent No. 2 was informed that because of change of ownership the property was required for personal need. He sent a notice to.
Respondent No. 2 on 08.06.2012 for vacation of the rented premises. Since the rent agreement dated 02.05.2002 was never registered, therefore, she filed an application under Section 20 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 for depositing of rent before the Rent Tribunal on 31.05.2012. The petitioner also filed an application for ejectment of respondent No. 2 in which the application for leave to defend was filed. On 11.12.2012 the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the annual rent as fine and consequently, he paid Rs.18,750/- in the Government Treasury. However, on 01.04.2013 leave to defend was allowed through a nonspeaking order, hence this, writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no dispute regarding rent agreement dated 02.05.2002 for seeking ejectment of respondent No. .2 after C.G.K. giving one month's notice; that a fine equivalent to 5% of the annual value of the rent of the premises was paid; that rent agreement dated 02.05.2002 was not registered and the impugned order was passed in violation of Section 9 of the, Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2009; that the learned Rent Tribunal was required to frame issue and record evidence in order to see whether plausible defence was in accordance with Section 25 of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2009; that original tenancy is dated 02.05.2002 which could not be extended orally, hence prays for setting aside of the impugned order. Places reliance on 2013 CLC 258.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contends that she is regularly paying the rent and no default is committed by her; that in view of the law laid down in 2013 CLC 620) he submits that once leave has been granted the respondent No. 2 has a right to prove her case on the basis of oral evidence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. And perused the available record.
6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Rent Tribunal has passed a non- speaking order as no reference was made to any discussion on the grounds taken by the parties.
The judgment (2013 CLC 620) cited by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case as in that case, elaborate leave granting order was passed, without commenting upon the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either party, I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2013 as the same is non- speaking and passed 'Without appreciating law on the facts and remand the case to the Rent Tribunal to decide the application for leave to defend filed by respondent No. 2, afresh. .