' ARSHAD MAHMOOD TABASSUM, J.---Respondent-landlord instituted an application for ejectment of the petitioner from shop No, 1, part of property Unit No, 583, situated in Gulgasht Colony, Multan city, on the ground that petitioner was a tenant under him in view of the registered tenancy agreement dated 28-10-2011; that the monthly rent of the demised shop was fixed at Rs, 18,000 and the same was to be enhanced from 1-1-2012; that the rate of rent was Rs, 23000 per month; that the petitioner tenant was obliged to make payment of monthly rent on or before 5th of each month; that the tenant failed to make payment of rent from the month of January 2013 till the institution of the ejectment petition i,e, 24-5-2013; that he was not using demised shop for the purpose for which it was rented out to him and also impaired its value and utility. The petitioner-tenant submitted an application for leave to contest on 14-6-2013, wherein, he admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and the registered lease agreement, however, maintained that the respondent-landlord used to issue receipts regarding payment of rent after every six months and not every month; that the petitioner-tenant had made payment of rent for the period from January to May 2013, but since as per practice the landlord used to issue receipts after six months, hence, he could not produce the said receipts. He, however, maintained that he had not committed default in payment of rent and that leave should be granted to contest the petition.. He also maintained in the preliminary objections that the ejectment petition was not in accordance with the requirements of section 19 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, and that the same was false and frivolous. He also maintained that he made payment of rupees five lacs as advance security.
2. The grounds urged in the application for leave to contest did not find favour with the learned Special Judge (Rent), who, ultimately, vide order dated 24-6-2013, declined the application for leave to contest and simultaneously passed ejectment order of the petitioner from the demised shop, directing him to vacate the same within thirty days. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned first appellate court also failed as the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 18-12- 2013. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application for leave to contest did disclose triable issues and factual controversy which could not be resolved without recording of evidence and that the learned Special Judge (Rent) was not within his right to dismiss the application for leave to contest and simultaneously pass the order regarding eviction of the petitioner which has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice and is illegal; and that similar is the legal position of the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court. He has further argued that in view of the section 19 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, the landlord was obliged to annex with the application for ejectment, affidavits of two persons duly sworn in by them in support of the contentions of the ejection application, but the affidavits so annexed by the landlord were not duly sworn in by the deponents before an Oath Commissioner competent to administer oath nor were signed by the deponents, hence, clear cut violation of the provisions of section 19 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, was committed by the landlord in view whereof the ejectment petition could not succeed. He has therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment. In this regard, he has placed reliance on case of Younas Siddique's case reported as "PLD 2009 Lahore 469", Muhammad Bashir's case "2010 SCMR 1915" and Bashir Ahmad's case reported as "PLD 1995 Lahore 48".
4. Conversely, the learned counsel the respondent has fully supported the impugned judgment.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted, including the lease agreement dated 28-10-2011. This being so, the parties are to be governed by the recitals of the said lease agreement, Article 1 whereof provides that the tenant would be obliged to make payment of monthly rent by the 5th of each month against receipts. It is the claim of the respondent landlord that the petitioner tenant failed to make payment of rent due w,e,f, January 2013 till institution of the ejectment petition i,e, 24-5-2013. The reply of the petitioner-tenant in this regard was that he made payment of the rent for the said period, but the respondent-landlord, in order to evade payment of property tax, did not issue receipts regarding payment of rent for the said period and used to issue the same in the months of July and December of each year. This claim of the petitioner tenant is in contravention of the terms of the lease agreement hence, cannot be entertained. It is well settled by now that no oral evidence can be preferred over the documentary evidence. So has been provided under Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which reads as under:- "Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.---When the terms of any such contract, grant of other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the. Last Article, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to an instrument or their representative in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from , Its terms."
' Illustration (b) to the above referred to Article further elaborates the situation which is to the following effect:- "A agrees absolutely in writing to pay Rs,1,000 on the first March, 1984. The fact that, at the same time, an oral agreement was made that the money should not be paid till the thirty first March cannot be proved."
' It has been held in the case titled "Bolan Beverages vt. Limited v. Pepsico Inc. And 4 others" (PLD 2004 SC 860) as under:- "This court in Hazratullah v. District Council Haripur 1997 SCMR 1570 had observed that when once a lease agreement has been reduced into writing, oral evidence was to be excluded while proving the terms thereof as against the terms specifically reduced into writing."
' Thus, it stood established that the petitioner-tenant had violated the terms of lease agreement in respect of payment of monthly rent, hence, no oral evidence was required to be recorded/produced. This being so, learned Special Judge (Rent) was left with no option but to pass an order of ejectment against the petitioner tenant by dismissing his application for leave to contest.
7. Needless to mention that such an application (application for leave to contest) could not be allowed unless it disclosed sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence as provided under subsection (4) of section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, which reads as under:- "The Rent Tribunal shall not allow leave to contest to a respondent unless the application discloses Sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence."
' It may be argued on behalf of the petitioner that in view of section 34 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, the provisions of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 have been made inapplicable to the proceedings under the said Act, but nevertheless the principles of law are equally applicable to rent matters. As pointed out above, there was no ground to allow the application for leave to contest in view of the contents of the lease agreement which was an admitted document and the violation whereof stood established from the contents of the application for leave to contest.
8. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the respondent-landlord had annexed with the petition affidavits which were not signed by the deponents. First of all this objection appears to be misconceived for the reasons that in view of the admitted position, as was manifest from the pleadings of the parties, no evidence was required to be recorded either by way of affidavits or otherwise. Secondly, affidavits are available on the record and the same appear to have been signed by the deponents and attested by the Oath Commissioner. Had there been any occasion for recording of the evidence then it could be adjudged as to whether the said affidavits had been signed by the deponents or not, but on the face of it the said affidavits could not be discarded.
9. In the light of above discussion, I have arrived at irresistible conclusion that the judgments passed by the learned courts below are in accordance with law. No illegality or irregularity has been detected therein calling for interference by this court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this petition appears to be without any merit which fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.