MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.---The brief facts giving rise to this appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, are to the effect that the appellant is the owner and landlady of Shops Nos.59-A and 59-B along with basement constructed on plot No,15, Murree Road/Bank Road, Rawalpindi (here-in-after referred to as "the demised premises"). The appellant let out the demised premises to the respondent through an unregistered' tenancy agreement dated 31-5-2004. At the same time the parties entered into an agreement for providing maintenance services in respect of the demised premises. On 7-10-2010, the appellant filed an ejectment petition before the Controller of Rents, Rawalpindi Cantonment, under Section 17 of the Act, ibid, for eviction of the respondent from the demised premises, inter alia, on the grounds of bona fide personal need and default. The respondent resisted the petition. On the divergent pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned Additional Rent Controller:
(1) Whether the petitioner in good faith requires the suit premises for her own personal bona fide use and occupation? OPP.
(2) Whether the respondent is a willful rent defaulter since June, 2010? OPP
(3) Whether the ejectment petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections? OPR
(4) Relief.
' On the basis of the evidence led by the parties Issues Nos. 1 to 3 were decided against the petitioner. Consequently, the appellant's ejectment petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantt., through order dated 4-11-2011. The learned Additional Rent Controller found that as per the lease agreement between the parties the tenancy of the demised premises was for a period of six years renewable for another term at the option of the respondent which option the-respondent had exercised. The learned Additional Rent Controller, therefore, held that the petition was premature as the tenure of the lease agreement between the parties still subsisted. The question of personal need was, therefore, not gone into by the learned Additional Rent Controller. It was also held that the appellant has been unable to establish default on the part of the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Additional Rent Controller has erred in holding that since the period of tenancy is to continue till 31-5-2016, therefore, the petition is premature. Admittedly the lease agreement is an unregistered document. It is settled law that a lease agreement between a landlord and tenant for a period exceeding one year requires registration. In case a lease agreement is for a period exceeding 11 months and is not registered it is bad in law. The lease agreement in question was executed on 31-5-2004 and as it was unregistered it expired, on 30-4-2005, whereafter the relationship between the parties was to be regulated by the provisions of the Act, ibid. The learned Additional Rent Controller has fallen into error in holding that the lease agreement continues and consequently the ejectment petition is premature. Relies on the judgments reported as Habib Bank Limited v. Dr. Munawar AU Siddiqui (1991 SCMR 1185) and M.K. Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Abu Bakar .(1993 SCMR 200).
Further Contends that on the basis of the evidence brought on the record the appellant was able to establish her bona fide personal need. Relies on the judgments reported as Hassan Khan v. Mrs. Munawar Begum (PLD 1976 Karachi 832), M/s Eveready Pictures Ltd. v. Chaman Begum. (PLD 1982.
Karachi 770), Mumtaz Begum v. Muhammad Yousaf (deceased) represented by Mst. Nasim Begum and 6 others (1982 CLC 1735), Muhammad Zaman v. Mehboob Ellahi (PLD 1981 Lahore 609) and M/s Syed Brothers v. M/s Film Exhibitors Ltd. And 10 others (1984 CLC 3434).
' On the question of default readily admits that the appellant was unable to establish the same.
' Prays for acceptance of the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent, has controverted the stance of the learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that the lease agreement in question is a valid and binding instrument between the parties and upon expiry of the initial period of 6 years was extendable at the option of the respondent for another term of 6 years. The respondents exercised that option at the relevant time, therefore, the lease agreement is to inure till 31-5-2016. The petition brought by the appellant was premature and has been so held by the learned Additional Rent Controller. Further submits that even otherwise the appellant failed to establish her personal bona fide need qua the demised premises, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The basic question which requires determination in the appeal is as to whether an unregistered lease agreement beyond a period of one year confers any rights on a tenant or the tenant is to be classified as a holding over tenant and the relationship between the landlord and tenant is to be regulated by the provisions of the Act, ibid. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a lease agreement which is beyond a period of one year requires registration by virtue of the provisions of section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with sections 17(d) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. In case a lease agreement is for a term exceeding one year or reserves a yearly rent and is not registered then it is bad in law. In such a case the relationship between the landlord and tenant is to be regulated by the provisions of the Statute in question which in the instant case is the Act, ibid. It has been further held that even- though the lease agreement would be bad in law yet it can be acted upon for other collateral terms and conditions between the parties. Reliance in this respect is placed on the judgments cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant and on the judgment reported as M/s Shama Soap Factory, Faisalabad v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone, Faisalabad (2006 PTD 178).
6. On the basis of the above position of the law it would, therefore, follow that as in the instant case the lease agreement is admittedly unregistered, the lease agreement for the purposes of tenure would only be binding up to the initial period of 11 months whereafter the relationship between the parties would be regulated by the terms of the Act, ibid. The respondent is, therefore, a statutory tenant and the A tenancy is to continue on a month to month basis-. As the specified period in the lease agreement does not extend beyond the initial 11 months there is no impediment in the way of the appellant from seeking the eviction of the respondent on the basis of bona fide personal need.
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there is a valid and binding agreement between the parties which is to inure till 31-5-2016 is, therefore, repelled.
7. The learned Additional Rent Controller, has, therefore, erred in holding that the lease agreement between the parties is to continue till 31-5-2016 and as a consequence the ejectment petition filed against the respondent is premature.
8. As mentioned above, the learned Additional Rent Controller, upon coming to the conclusion that the appellant's ejectment petition is premature further held that the appellant does not require the, demised premises for her own personal bona fide occupation. In having done so the learned Additional Rent Controller did not in effect evaluate the evidence brought on the record by the parties on the issue of personal bona fide need of the appellant. Issue No,1 therefore for all intents and purposes remained undecided. The learned Additional Rent Controller has further erred in law in not deciding Issue No 1.
9. As held above, the tenure of the lease agreement between the parties has expired. The respondent is, therefore, a holding over tenant and the tenancy in question is continuing on a month to month basis. The question, therefore, of personal bona fide need of the appellant requires to be determined.
10. The impugned order dated 4-11-20111 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantt. Is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Rent Controller for decision afresh on issue No,1 i.e, the question of personal bona fide need of the appellant vis-a-vis the demised premises. The parties would be at liberty to lead additional evidence in support of their respective contentions, if so advised.
11. The learned Additional Rent Controller is further directed to endeavour to expeditiously decide the appellant's ejectment petition but no later than 31-12-2012.
12. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
13. The record of the case be remitted forthwith.