' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J. The 'petitioner filed an ejectment petition before the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore seeking eviction of respondent No,2 herein from property measuring 2-Marlas bearing No,S-64-R-471RH, stated to have been commonly known as "Barry Sons " situated in New Anarkali, Lahore, mainly on the ground of default in payment of rent, as also the expiry of tenancy.
2. Respondent No,2 appeared on notice and filed an application finder section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 denying the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties to the ejectment petition and secondly his own status has been denied as a tenant in the property by asserting that he is in business being carried out in the premises in question as a partner of Aqeel Ahmed and that he has never entered into any rent agreement with any person with regard to the premises in question.
3. Learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore, on 12-6-2012 granted leave to respondent No,2 to contest the ejectment petition holding that the application filed by him discloses sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence.
4. The order, as was passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) on 12-6-2012, has been challenged by the petitioner in this Constitutional petition questioning the competence of the learned Special Judge (Rent), firstly in matter of grant of leave to contest and secondly that if the leave was granted, it was obligatory for the said Rent Tribunal to direct the "tenant" in view of the provisions of section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 to deposit the rent due from him or in alternate to ask for any solemn surety.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the available record.
6. In section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 it is not the duty of a "tenant" to pray for leave to contest the petition rather keeping in view the wording used in such statutory provision it is A pertinent to note that a "respondent" is required to file a petition for leave to contest and the learned Rent Tribunal on the strength of the affidavits annexed. With the leave petition would consider the grounds for grant of leave or otherwise in favour of or against a "respondent". If the leave to contest is refused, only in that event in view of section 22(6) of the said Act, learned Rent Tribunal is made competent to pass the "final order". The term "final order" is defined in section 2(b) of the said Act, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced herein below:--- "Final order" means a final order passed by a Rent Tribunal culminating the proceedings including an order in respect of adjustment of pagri, advance rent, security, arrears of rent, compensation or costs but shall not include an order passed in an execution proceedings".
The power to order for deposit of arrears of rent is a part of such final order to be passed by the learned Rent Tribunal in case of r refusal to grant leave to contest.
7. In case of grant of leave to contest, the learned Rent Tribunal is competent to direct for deposit of rent due and this direction can be issued to a "tenant". Here again for the sake of convenience, the term "tenant" as is defined for the Special Law in section 2(1) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 is reproduced here-under:--- "tenant" means a person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the occupation of a premises by him ar by any other person on his behalf and includes;
(i) a person who continues to be in occupation of the premises after the termination of his tenancy for the purpose of a proceeding under this Act; ' legal heirs of a tenant in the event of death of the tenant who continue to be in occupation of the premises;
(iii) a sub-tenant who is in possession of the premises or part thereof with the written consent of the landlord; From the above, it is clear that once a leave is refused to a respondent in the ejectment petition in that event only the learrfed Rent Tribunal would be competent to pass a final order including the direction with regard to deposit of arrears of rent but once a leave is granted and the respondent as impleaded in the ejectment petition is treated a tenant, only then the order for deposit of rent due can be passed directing him for compliance of section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. But where the respondent in ejectment petition notwithstanding the fact of grant of leave has not attained the status of tenant, he cannot be asked to deposit the arrears of rent unless first he is declared as a tenant. In case of refusal on the part of the respondent in ejectment petition with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant with the ejectment petition the status of "tenant" cannot be attached with person of respondent and, as such, a direction in terms of section 24 of the said D Act, which ought to have been passed to a tenant cannot be given to such respondent, who has refused the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties to the ejectment petition.
8. In this particular case, except the fact that the person, who has been treated as a tenant by ejectment petitioner, has been impleaded as a respondent in the ejectment petition, no E material has been placed by the petitioner before the learned Rent Tribunal establishing the status of respondent as that of a tenant either under previous owner or the petitioner, who claims herself to be a new owner of the property.
9. The claim of the petitioner is that after stated purchase of the property, her such status was admitted by the respondent in presence of some witnesses but the alleged acceptance of the respondent with regard to the status of the petitioner as a new landlady would not absolve the petitioner claiming herself to be a new owner of the property to act in accordance with the mandatory provision as contained in section 30 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, which requires the issuance of written intimation of transfer of title by registered post or a courier service to the tenant and at the same time to the Rent Registrar for entering the name of new owner in the register as the landlord of the premises and then the Rent Registrar Shall inform the tenant through a notice, at the expense of the landlord, about the transfer of ownership of the premises and the tenant shall not be deemed to have been defaulted in payment of rent if the rent due is paid or tendered to the new landlord within a period of thirty days from the date when the notice should in normal course has reached the tenant. In absence of any such notice, the person claiming himself to be a landlord would be debarred to allege any default on the part of the person impleaded as a tenant.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner as an alternate relief has prayed for a direction to respondent No,2 to furnish a reasonable G security for protection of her interest by imposing a condition with leave granting order.
' I am afraid, in Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, which is a Special Law no such provision has been enacted by the law givers whereby a respondent or tenant can be compelled to furnish a surety or security as a substitute to the deposit of rent and in absence of any such provisions, such direction, which has been prayed for as a substitute also cannot be granted.
11. There is another aspect of the matter that the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) is interlocutory in nature and even the remedy of appeal is not provided against such order in view of provisions of section 28(2) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. From interim order of such nature, which is under challenge in these I Constitutional proceedings, the Constitutional jurisdiction ordinarily is not exercised unless the order is shown to have been passed without jurisdiction or without lawful authority and a perverse order. No such deficiency can be attached with the order passed by learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore on 12-6-2012.
12. For what has been discussed above, the order passed by learned Rent Controller is just, proper and within the fours of law and no interference is called for in Constitutional jurisdiction.
13. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed in limine. in limine.