' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J. --- Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner has called in question the validity of judgment dated 28.7.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dismissing his appeal against the order dated 4.5.2012 whereby the learned Rent Tribunal refused to grant leave to contest and directed him to hand over vacant possession of the demised property to the respondent within forty days.
2. Brief facts necessary for proper adjudication of the lis in hand are that the respondent filed ejectment petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from shop Nos. 5,6 and 7, in the basement of lower ground floor, Al-Faisal Plaza, Commercial Area, Moon Market, Lahore, on the grounds of expiry of lease period; default in payment of rent and causing damage to the demised premises. The petitioner appeared and filed application for leave to contest the ejectment petition. The learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore, refused to grant leave and passed eviction order dated 4.5.2012 against the petitioner. The said order was further challenged by the petitioner in appeal which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 28.7.2012. Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that findings of both the courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of the available record; that the petitioner had obtained possession of the demised premises after payment of 85% of goodwill to the previous tenant and 15% to the respondent/landlord and now when he wants to hand over its possession to some other tenant the respondent/landlord is demanding 25% of the goodwill as against the agreement dated 16.8.2012; that he has filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief against the respondent/landlord, which is still pending; that no lease period had ever been settled between the parties and the alleged agreement of tenancy dated 1.7.2005 placed on record by the respondent is forged one; that no default has ever been committed by the petitioner in payment of monthly rent; that the respondent received rent for the month of March and April, 2011 in cash and thereafter on his refusal to receive rent the same was sent through money orders and thereafter deposited in the Court; that the matter in controversy could only be resolved by production of evidence but both the courts below deprived the petitioner of his valuable right of defending his cause by production of evidence in support of his claim; and that findings of both the courts below are contrary to facts and law and have resulted in miscarriage of justice.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted and default in payment of rent was floating on the surface, therefore, both the courts below rightly refused to grant leave to the petitioner; that even during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner did not comply with the orders of the learned appellate Court regarding payment of monthly rent and failed to deposit the same within the prescribed time; that the lease period according to agreement dated 1.7.2011 has expired; and that both the order/judgment of the learned courts below have been passed in accordance with law.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The main ground raised by the respondent/landlord for seeking eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises was default in payment of rent from November, 2010 to February, 2011. The petitioner denied this fact but failed to bring on record any receipt showing payment of rent for the aforesaid period. In the tenancy agreement dated 1.7.2005 in clause (1) it is mentioned that the rent shall be paid on 1st of every month. As per record even after the institution of the ejectment petition the petitioner never paid the rent on the due date. He paid rent for the months of January and February, 2012 on 13.3.2012 and for the month of March, 2012 on 16.3.2012. Similar is the position with regard to rest of the payments made by the petitioner though receipts which are available on the record of this petition. The petitioner disputes the genuineness of the tenancy agreement dated 1.7.2005. Even if for the sake of arguments the said agreement is supposed to be bogus, the petitioner's own agreement of rent dated 16.8.2002 does not contain any target date for deposit of monthly rent. According to section 7 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 if the date of payment is not mentioned in the tenancy agreement, a tenant is required to pay or tender the rent not later than tenth of the following month. So much so the learned first appellate Court ordered the petitioner to deposit the monthly rent till 10th of each month but he did not comply with the direction of the Court and failed to deposit the rent till the date fixed by the Court. It has consistently held by this Court as well as the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that even delay of one day is sufficient to hold the tenant as a defaulter. Reliance in this regard may be made to the case of Muhammad Ali Tauqir v. Rafiq Ahmed (1999 CLC 795). In the circumstances, the respondent has been successful in proving default in payment of rent by the present petitioner.
7. As regards the expiry of tenancy period, this court has perused both the tenancy agreements dated 16.8.2002 and 1.7.2005. In tenancy agreement dated 16.8.2002 no date of term of tenancy period is shown. However, in the agreement dated 1.7.2005 date of termination of tenancy is written as January, 2011. As per agreement dated 1.7.2005 the tenancy period has expired. In case of agreement dated 16.8.2002 the tenancy period shall be considered as month to month. As the respondent had filed ejectment petition against the petitioner, therefore, it was a sufficient notice that he is not willing to extend the period of tenancy for further period. Expiry of lease period is also one of the grounds for seeking eviction under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. From the available record, it can easily be said that the tenancy period has expired. So far as the question of goodwill is concerned the petitioner has already filed a suit, which is pending before the Civil Court.
This Court is thus avoiding to give any comment or record any finding in this regard so that the case of either party should not be prejudiced.
8. In view of above, I do not find any misreading or non -reading or legal infirmity in the impugned order/judgment of the courts below calling interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed. Writ .