' M. SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, J.---Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment 13-6-2012 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Kallar Syedan, District Rawalpindi (Civil Judge Ist Class) and judgment dated 31-1-2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that respondents Nos.3 to 8 filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner from 23 shops with upper store in shape of 6 flats situated in Khewat. No.56, Khatooni No.137 Khasra No.451/58 measuring one Kanal, 10 marlas situated in Kallar Sagwal, Tehsil Kallar Syedan, District Rawalpindi on the ground of default in the payment of rent and subletting the property without permission of the landlords/respondents. The petitioner filed a petition for leave to defend which was allowed and after framing of issues and recording of evidence an ejectment order was passed by the learned Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 13-6- 2012. The appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi vide judgment dated 31-1-2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents while filing the ejectment petition under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 failed to submit their affidavits and affidavits of two witnesses along with the ejectment petition as stipulated under section 19(4) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. It is further contended that the affidavits submitted in evidence were neither verified by the respondents nor attested by the Oath Commissioner which was the primary requirement of the affidavit. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was neither the defaulter nor the property was sublet to any other person.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has frankly conceded that although affidavits were not submitted with the ejectment petition. The same were submitted through an affidavit in evidence and thus the deficiency was cured.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
6. Before going into the merits of the case I would discuss the legal requirements for filing an ejectment petition and affect of its non-compliance as contemplated in section 19(4) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. Section 19(4) of the Act reads as under:-- "19(4) If the application is for eviction of a tenant, the landlord shall submit his affidavit and affidavits of not more than two witnesses along with the eviction application."
' This is an express requirement of law and it is settled by now that where the law requires an act to be done or performed in a particular manner, it has to be accordingly done/performed. Moreover, where an application should be submitted by an affidavit under a statutory provision such application without such affidavit shall not be maintainable; however, the defect in this behalf is curable but only in those cases where a sufficient and reasonable explanation is given by the party for not filing his affidavit with the application for ejectment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the ejectment application and the same has not been accompanied with the affidavits of the respondents and affidavits of two witnesses. Learned counsel for the respondents has conceded that affidavits were not filed with the ejectment application, however, there was a verification upon the ejectment application. A departure from a clear statutory procedure has not been sufficiently explained, therefore, it renders the ejectment petition not maintainable in the eyes of law. I am fortified in my view I with observations made in judgments reported in Khalil-ur-Rehman and another v. Manzoor Ahmad and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 512) and Muhammad Saleem Nawaz v. Addl. District Judge, Chishtian and 2 others (PLD 2012 Lahore 217). Besides above, respondents have also not shown sufficient or reasonable explanation for non-depositing 10% penalty of the annual value of the rent.
7. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. Both the orders/judgments passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 are set aside. However, respondents Nos. 3 to 8 may file a fresh ejectment petition before the learned Rent Tribunal in accordance with law.