' RAUF AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---The petitioner has assailed the vires of judgment and decree dated 24- 8-2010 passed by the learned ADJ, Rawalpindi, whereby an appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 24-3-2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Rawalpindi directing his eviction from the rented premises comprising of basement, ground floor and first floor constructed on Plot No,B-II (Unit No,3)- Bismillah Plaza, Commercial Market Satellite Town, Rawalpindi was dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner was tenant over the rented premises @ Rs,73200 per month and agreement deed dated 10-11-2004 was duly executed between the parties.
The respondent contended that the tenancy was for a fixed period of five years w,e,f, 10-11-2004 and has expired on 10-11-2009 and he was not willing to extend the period of tendency as he required the same for his personal use in good faith because he was returned from abroad. He contended that the petitioner/ tenant had refused to vacate the premises in spite of repeated requests.
2. The petitioner/tenant submitted an application for leave to contest with the contention that the application was moved with mala fide intention as the landlord wanted to increase the rent. It was contended that under Clauses 1 and 7 the initial period of lease was for a term of five years but the same is renewable for a further term of five years on the same terms and conditions and shall be extended for another term of five years at the option of the lessee. It is urged that the lease was extended as per terms and the landlord also accepted the rent. It is urged that under the agreement, the lease is renewable at the option of the lessee, which he has exercised and as such it still exists so the eviction petition is not maintainable. The learned Special Judge (Rent) vide order dated 24-3-2010 held that the period of lease had expired and unilateral renewal was not permissible under the agreement so the tenant was liable of ejectment and accordingly proceeded on to direct the petitioner to vacate the premises till 30-4-2010. The learned. ADJ upheld the above final order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Special Judge (Rent) and the learned ADJ both misconstrued the contents of the lease deed and have thus committed material irregularity, by holding that the period of tenancy has expired. He has preferred to Clauses 1 and 7. It is vehemently contended that if the Rent Controller and the learned ADJ both pass illegal orders due to misreading or misconstruing of the evidence, this Court, can set aside the same in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In support of the contentions raised reliance is placed on 2001 SCM R 338.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has vehemently contended that under the lease deed the first renewable of the term can be effected only with the mutual consent of the parties but the second term is renewable at the option of the tenant but the landlord had not given consent of renewal on expiry of the first term so the petitioner was liable of eviction under section 15(a) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 and as such the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
4. The controversy revolves around Clauses 1 and 7 of the lease deed dated 10-11-2004, which is an admitted document and its correct interpretation can lead to the just decision. For ready reference and proper appraisal of the same, both the clauses are reproduced hereunder:-- "(1). That the tenancy shall be for an initial term of 5 years, commencing from 21-10-2004 and is renewable for a further term of five years with same terms and conditions and after that the tendency shall be renewed for further term at the option of the Lessee."
"7. That the duration of the lease shall be for a term of 5 years and is renewable for further term of five years with the same terms and conditions that the tendency shall be renewed for further terms at the option of the Lessee. However, the Lease Agreement can be terminated by the Lessee-at any time during the lease term by giving 3 months' notice or payment equivalent to 3 months rental, in lieu thereof."
It is clear from the use of word "terms" in clause No,7 that both first and second renewals are at the option of the lessee. Even in Clause 1, it can be easily and safely be inferred that the first term is renewable for further term of five years on the terms and after that the tenancy shall be renewed for further term at the option of the lessee. The option is given to the lessee for both renewals of the tenancy on same terms and conditions. This has been categorically clarified by use of word "terms" instead of "term" in clause 7. Had the intention of the parties been that the option would confine to the second renewal only then the words "terms" should have not been used in clause 7. The use of words at the option of the lessee in clause 1 vividly reveals that this is qualifying A clause of both renewals, which can be extended on the same terms and conditions. Both clauses read and interpreted together on the basis of texts would lead to an inference, that the tenancy is renewable for two terms of five years at the option of the lessee. The learned Special Judge (Rent) and the learned ADJ both failed to construe the terms of the admitted agreement deed in true perspective and with reference to the context. The tendency still exists and the period has yet not expired so the eviction petition is premature. The requirement for personal need is not one of grounds of eviction provided under section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. The impugned judgments and decrees are not sustainable under the law and are accordingly set aside. Consequently the ejectment petition filed by respondent No,3 stands dismissed.