SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J. - The petitioner has assailed the legality of order dated 19.6.2012 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Rahim Yar Khan whereby an ejectment petition made by Muhammad Shafiq respondent No. 2 was accepted.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 Islam-ud-Din was inducted in the disputed property vide rent deed dated 26.3.2010 executed by him in favour of respondent No. 2 Muhammad Shafiq, which was let out for the purpose of running a restaurant. The aforesaid Islam- ud-Din did not abide by the terms and conditions of the rent deed and committed default in the payment of rent, did not pay the remaining advance money and sublet the same to the present petitioner Wajih-ud-Din. Therefore, Muhammad Shafique respondent No. 2 was constrained to make eviction petition.
3. The learned Rent Tribunal summoned the present petitioner and respondent No. 3, who inspire of their personal service, did not appear before the learned Rent Tribunal on 6.10.2011 and thereafter, the case was transferred to another Tribunal and fresh notices were issued and ultimately they were served through proclamation in the newspaper but they did not appear and were proceeded against ex -parte on 17.11.2011. On 29.11.2011 an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings was made. Both the respondents of ejectment petition did not make any petition for leave to contest the eviction petition as required under Section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.
Learned Rent Tribunal dismissed the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and after recording the evidence, accepted the eviction petition vide order dated 19.6.2012.
4. The present petitioner preferred an appeal against the afore- mentioned order of eviction, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, vide judgment dated 2.10.2012, hence, the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in occupation of the disputed property being a partner of the original tenant Islam-ud-Din. He after having the knowledge of ex-parte order, made a petition for setting aside ex-parte order before the learned Rent Tribunal which was rejected arbitrarily; that the petitioner being an illiterate person had no knowledge that any petition for leave to contest was required to be made and he cannot be held responsible for this negligence; that even otherwise it' was incumbent upon the learned Rent Tribunal to record the evidence in accordance with the provisions of law"; that the affidavits of the PWs submitted before the learned Rent Tribunal were not duly sworn and the learned Rent Tribunal has committed material irregularity while relying thereon, therefore, the impugned order of the learned Rent Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Relies on case-law reported as "Hasnat Ahmad Khan Vs. Institution Officer (2010 SCMR 354 (Supreme Court of Pakistan)", "Bashir Ahmad Vs. Abdul Wahid (PLD 1995 Lahore 98)", "Amanullah Soomro Vs. PIA through Managing Director/Chairman and another (2011 SCMR 1341 Supreme Court of Pakistan)", "Hamayun Sarfraz Khan and others Vs. Noor Muhammad (2007 SCMR 307 Supreme Court of Pakistan)", "Ahmed Rice Mills and others Vs. Nawab Rahat Ali Khan (PLD 1995 Lahore 422)" and "Zila Council, Lahore through its Chairman Vs. Reham Dil Khan (PU 2,002 Lahore 1023)".
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Muhammad Shafique landlord has contended that the petitioner is in occupation of the disputed property as sub-tenant and has got no locus standi or cause of action to assail the legality of the order of eviction; that the landlord is not bound by the partnership, if any, between the present petitioner and the original tenant Islam- ud-Din; that the tenant Islam-ud-Din had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the rent deed, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be maintained.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and have perused the record.
8. The rent deed Ex.A-2 is an admitted document, which was executed by Islam-ud-Din in favour of Muhammad Shafique According to the terms and conditions of the rent deed, the monthly rent was settled as Rs. 10,000/- per month with the annual increase of 10%. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid out of the total security of Rs. 50,000/-. It was also agreed that the tenant will not sublet the shop in question and will pay all the utility bills. According to landlord Muhammad Shafique, the remaining amount of security was not paid and the tenant/respondent No. 3 stopped the payment of monthly rent from June, 2011 and sublet the same to Wajih-ud-Din, the present petitioner.
9. The petitioner Wajih-ud-Din neither mentioned in the memorandum of appeal nor in this petition, the nature of his possession that how he was inducted in the disputed property, however during the course of arguments, it was alleged that the petitioner is a partner of Islam-ud-Din/the original tenant, therefore, he is occupying the disputed property as a partner of the original tenant 'but the learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate his contention and could not produce any law that the landlord was bound by the partnership, if any, between the original tenant and the alleged sub-tenant/present petitioner.
10. The petitioner has raised certain objections about the mode of recording of evidence by the learned Rent Tribunal but it was the primary liability of the present petitioner and Islam-ud-Din respondent No. 3 to make a petition under Section 22(2) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 for seeking permission to contest the eviction petition. The bare reading of section ibid shows that it was obligatory for them to i.e application for leave to contest within 10 days of the first appearance before the learned Rent Tribunal. The penalty has been provided in Section 22(6) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 according to which if the leave to contest is refused or the respondent fails to i.e application for leave to contest within the stipulated time, the learned Rent Tribunal shall pass the final order. In the instant case admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 did not make application for leave to contest within the stipulated period. Therefore, the learned Rent Tribunal had got no option but to accept the eviction petition. The case-law produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The ignorance pf the petitioner in making application for leave to contest is no excuse in the eye of law. Even otherwise the original tenant/respondent No. 3 had not challenged the legality of order of eviction before the learned Appellate Court nor before this Court and the present petitioner being sub-tenant, has got no locus standi to challenge the legality of order of his eviction.
In view of above, the writ petition in hand is without any merits, the same stands dismissed in limine.