' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J. --- Through this writ petition, Mst. Rehana Fayyaz has challenged the legality, correctness and vires of order dated 09.04.2014 passed by learned Rent Tribunal/Civil Judge, Rahimyarkhan, whereby an application moved by her under section 24 (4) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (hereinafter called. Rented Premises Act, 2009 for short), seeking to eject Muhammad lqbal, respondent No, was dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner instituted an ejectment petition against Muhammad lqbal, the aforementioned in respect of a -shop bearing No,B-ll307, situated at Railway Road Rahimyarkhan, alleging that Muhammad lqbal is a tenant under her, who allegedly violated the terms and conditions of his tenancy and even wont to the extent of occupying her other properties. The ejectment was also sought on the ground that respondent No, 2 had become a wilful defaulter, who instead of paying rent to her was depositing rent with the learned Rent Tribunal.
3'. Respondent No,2 entered appearance, and filed a petition under section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, seeking leave to contest the petition filed against him. It so happened that with the concurrence of the petitioner/landlord; he was allowed leave to contest. Thereafter, the learned Rent Tribunal seized with the ejectment petition framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the respondent made changes in rented premises and violated terms of rent deed, therefore, he is liable to be evicted? OPA.
2. Whether the respondent committed wilful default in payment of monthly rent, therefore, he is liable to be ejected? OPA.
3. Whether ejectment petition has been filed with collusion of Sh. Asif only to get vacated the rented premises prior to stipulated period? OPR.
4. Relief.
4. On 20.12.2013, the petitioner moved an application under Rented Premises Act, 2009, maintaining that since the tenant had failed to comply with a certain order passed by the Rent Tribunal, his action entailed his eviction straightway. The tenant/respondent No,2 filed reply to the aforesaid application. As stated above, the application moved by the petitioner seeking ejectment of respondent No, 2 herein was turned down vide order dated 09.04.2014, which has been assailed through the instant petition. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under:- `Perusal of record reveals that the respondent regularly deposited the rent of the shop by 5th of every month but in the month of July he could not deposit the same within the stipulated time and he deposited the rent on 09.07.2013 instead of 05.07.2013. There is delay of only three days which has, been well explained by the respondent. Delay of such a short time in depositing the rent does not show male fide of the respondent. This is a court of law and facts and it cannot decide the application without recording the evidence of the parties. Moreover, law also favours the adjudications on merits instead of technicalities. In these , circumstances, application merits no consideration and same is dismissed being devoid of any force.'
5. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, Muhammad lqbal, respondent No,2 had filed an application under Rented Premises Act, 2009 seeking permission to deposit rent. His application was disposed of on 13.06.2013 in the wake of a statement made by the learned counsel for the 'petitioner herein to the effect that she had had no objection to the allowing of the petition provided the tenant continued to deposit the monthly rent by the 5th of each month. According to the learned counsel, in the meantime, the petitioner filed an ejectment petition on 23.05.2013. He argues that the order dated 13.06.2013 passed in the petition moved by respondent No,2 under section 20 is to be construed as an order having been passed under section 24 of the Rent Premises Act, 2009. He goes on to argue that the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal Rahimyarkhan was devoid of any sanction of law behind it.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record appended to the writ petition with his assistance.
7. As spelt out in the foregoing paragraphs of this order, when the petitioner herein refused to receive rent tendered to her by Muhammad lqbal, respondent No, 2, he filed an application with the learned Rent Tribunal Rahimyarkhan under section 20 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. This was allowed vide order dated 13.06.2013, and he was directed to deposit monthly rent by the 5th of every month. From a perusal of the order sheet appended to the writ petition, it is patently obvious that leave to contest was granted to Muhammad lqbal on 14.10.2013 without attaching any conditions. In point of fact, it was stated categorically, unambiguously and unequivocally by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had had no objection to the granting of the application moved by the tenant for leave to contest the ejectment petition. To all intents and purposes, the tenant was granted unconditional leave to contest the claim made by the petitioner on merits. It seems that instead of proving her case by adducing evidence in support of the pleas taken by her in the ejectment petition, the petitioner turned around and came up with an application under section 24 (4) of the Rented Premises Act, 2009. The question arises whether an order made under Section 20 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 might be considered to have been passed under section 24 (4) thereof. It would be expedient and advantageous to reproduce sections 20 and 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009:-
20. Application for deposit of rent.---(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if a landlord refused to accept the rent, the tenant may file an application in the Rent Tribunal for deposit of the rent.
(2) The Rent Tribunal Shall, without prejudice to the rights of the landlord, allow the tenant to deposit the rent for the period for which the landlord has refused to receive the rent.
(3) The Rent Tribunal shall inform the landlord of the deposit of rent by the tenant and may pass an order permitting the landlord to collect the same.'
24. Paym ent of rent and other dues pending proceedings.--- (1) If an eviction application is filed, the Rent Tribunal, while granting leave to contest, shall direct the tenant to deposit the rent due from him within a specified time and continue to deposit the same in accordance with the tenancy agreement or as may be directed by the Rent Tribunal in the bank account of the landlord or in the Rent Tribunal till the final order.
(2) If there is a dispute as the amount of rent due or rate of rent, the Rent Tribunal shall tentatively determine the dispute and pass the order for deposit of the rent in terms of subsection (1).
(3) In case the tenant has not paid a utility bill, the Rent Tribunal shall direct the tenant to pay the utility bill.
(4) If a tenant fails to comply with a direction or order of the Rent Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal shall forthwith pass the fine order.
8. A plain reading of section 20 reproduced above shows that it was enacted to provide for meeting a specific situation that might arise in the event of a landlord's refusing to receive the rent from the tenant. Should this happen, the tenant would be able to approach the Rent Tribunal, seeking permission to deposit the rent due from him. In the absence of any such provision in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, the devious, dishonest and clever landlord might refuse to receive rent from the tenant and then institute an ejectment petition on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in the payment of the rent. Section 20 takes care of such a situation, thereby plugging a loophole. It may be added that section 20 deals with a situation that arises prior to the institution of an ejectment petition, while section 24 comes into play after the filing of an eviction' petition. And this result follows from the very words used in section 24, which opens with the following expressions:- 'If an eviction application is filed, the Rent Tribunal, while granting leave to contest, shall direct the tenant to deposit the rent due from him within a specified time and continue to deposit the same in accordance with the tenancy agreement.--------------------- ' It is absolutely clear that the order for depositing rent under section 24 of the Rented Premises Act, 2009 is to be made at the time of granting leave to contest. Therefore, an order passed under section 20 of the Rented Premises Act, 2009 prior to the filing of an ejectment petition would hardly be of any avail to the landlord. To cut short the matter, the scope, purview and reach of sections 20 & 24 of the Rented Premises Act, 2009 are quite distinct, and they are intended to achieve two different objects. Therefore, any order passed under section 20 is not to be dovetailed with a non- existent order under section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises, Act, 2009.
9. In the instant case, it is crystal clear that at the time of granting leave to contest to respondent No, 2, he was not ordered to deposit the alleged rent due from him within a specified time nor was he asked to continue to deposit the same. Therefore, the landlord/petitioner could not press into service and fall back on the order dated 13.06.2013 passed under section 20 of the Rented Premises Act, 2009, which was made prior to the filing of the ejectment petition.
10. As for the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that any order passed under any provisions contained in the Rented Premises Act, 2009 is to be construed as an order under section 24 (4), and if the same is not complied with by a tenant, it shall entail the passing of the final order of eviction against him in terms of sub-section (4) of section 24, I find it hard, to accept this argument for the simple reason that sub-section (4) is not an independent provision. This is only a part of section 24. In my view, the Rent Tribunal must pass a specific order under sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Rented Premises Act, 2009 to attract the provisions of subsection (4) thereof, leading to the straightway eviction of the tenant. Various orders passed by the Rent Tribunal during the course of the trial of an ejectment petition are not to be misconstrued to have been passed under section 24.
11. Although the reasoning given by the learned Rent Tribunal to pass the impugned order dated 09.04.2014 is different, yet I am inclined to uphold the same for different reasons set out hereinabove.
12. For what has been stated above, this petition merits dismissal. Dismissed in limine. Writ .