SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J. - The petitioner has assailed the legality of order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Mailsi District Vehari whereby an application for permission to record evidence of the petitioner/respondent in the ejectment petition made by respondent No. 2 was dismissed.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Khuda Yar filed eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The petitioner contested the said petition and filed application for leave to contest the same. Respondent No. 2 contested the said application and the learned Rent Tribunal issued direction to pay the i.e under Section 9(b) and also to deposit due rent within 7 days and framed the following issues:-- "Issues No. 1 Whether the respondent is liable for eviction from the disputed shop on the ground as mentioned in the application? OPA No. 2 Whether the applicant has no cause of action? OPR No. 3 Relief."
3. During the pendency of rent petition, the petitioner filed an application for permission to record his evidence. The respondent contested the same and the learned Rent Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contested that it was not necessary for the petitioner to submit affidavits of all the witnesses with his application for leave to contest and he has the every right to produce his oral evidence in favour of his version and that the petitioner has got no other remedy but to seek remedy of availing the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Relies on case titled "Khalil- ur-Rehman and another Vs. Dr. Manzoor Ahmed and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 512)".
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Khuda Yar landlord has contended that the writ petition is not competent against an interim order of the learned Rent Tribunal which is an appealable order; that the statements of the witnesses of respondent No. 2 have been recorded and the petitioner has filed this petition as delaying tactics. Relies on case titled "Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi Vs. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, S&GAD, Karachi and another (1996 SCM R 1165 [Supreme Court of Pakistan])".
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. Under Section 28(1 & 2) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 a person aggrieved by a final order may, within thirty days, prefer an appeal in writing to the District Judge of the District and no appeal lies against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Tribunal. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against an interlocutory order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal which is neither appealable nor revisable, as such the writ petition is competent.
8. Under Section 22(3) ibid an application for leave to contest shall be in the form of a written reply, stating grounds on which the leave is sought and shall be accompanied by an affidavit bf the respondent, copy of all relevant documents in his possession and, if desired, affidavits of not more than two witnesses.
9. An option has been given to the tenant for the purpose of making out a case for the leave, if he feels the necessity of affidavits of the witnesses in support of his defence, he may i.e those, but a restriction has been placed that such affidavits should not be more than two and if the option has not been exercised by the tenant, no penal consequences have been provided under the law. Once leave to contest has been granted to a tenant, despite non-filing of affidavit of the witness by him, his right to prove the case through oral evidence remains unimpaired.
10. The mode of recording evidence by the learned Rent Tribunal is given under Section 25 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 wherein it is mentioned that the Rent Tribunal shall treat an affidavit filed by a party as evidence and may on its own motion or order the attendance of deponent for cross-examination. In the instant case the petitioner has submitted his own affidavit with the written reply and has now made a request that he intend to get his oral statement recorded before the Court in the shape of his examination-in- chief but the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 does not permit recording of his examination-in-chief in. His oral evidence as according to Section 25(2) ibid, his affidavit shall be treated as his examination-in-chief and he will be cross- examined accordingly. Therefore, the learned Rent Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application to the extent of the writing of examination-in-chief. However, in view of the case titled "Khalil-ur-Rehman and another Vs. Dr. Manzoor Ahmad and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 512)", the petitioner is at liberty to produce his other witnesses despite the non-filing of affidavits of the witnesses as his right to prove the case through oral evidence remains unimpaired.
In view of above observations, this petition stands disposed of accordingly.