' ARSHAD MAHMOOD TABASSUM, J. --- Mst. Shamim Akhtar, respondent No, 3 herein, on 26.11.2009, instituted an application for ejectment of the petitioner from shop No, 5, fully described in the head note of the said application, stating therein that she was landlady and the petitioner a tenant under her, vide lease agreement dated 01.08.2006, at a monthly rent of Rs, 2,000/- per month; that the lease agreement was operative upto 01.08.2007, thereafter, no extension in the lease period was agreed between the parties; that the petitioner was liable to be evicted on the ground that the lease agreement had expired and that she called him upon to vacate the demised premises, but he had refused to do so. The ejectment application was contested by the petitioner through filing application for leave to contest, wherein he raised preliminary objections that the application for ejectment was not maintainable without making payment of the penalty as provided under Section 9(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (the Act), as tenancy was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and that the application for ejectment was not entertainable till such time that the landlady deposited the fine equivalent to 10% of the amount of annual rent of the demised premises, in the government treasury. However, it appears that during pendency of the application for ejectment, the landlady, on direction of the learned Special Judge (Rent) deposited the fine at the rate of 10% of the annual rental amount of the demised premises in the Court.
2. After recording evidence of the parties, Special Judge (Rent), vide his order dated 09.04.2011, allowed the application for ejectment and directed the petitioner to vacate the demised shop within one month from the date of the said order. On appeal, the petitioner remained unsuccessful as Additional District Judge, Sahiwal dismissed the appeal vide his judgment dated 30.03.2012.
Hence, this petition.
3. The sole arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition, was that as per mandate of Section 8 of the Act, the existing tenancy was to be brought in conformity with the provisions of the Act and that under Section 9 of the Act, if tenancy did in conform to the provisions of the Act, the learned Rent Tribunal was obliged not to entertain application for ejectment, filed under the Act and that since the fine was deposited during the pendency of the application for ejectment, when the same had been entertained by the learned Special Judge (Rent), hence, the same was liable to be dismissed and that the learned Courts below did not appreciate the objection raised by him. He has relied upon the case of Muhammad Saleem Nawaz (PLD 2012 Lahore 217).
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents, while placing reliance on the case titled "Rana Abdul Hameed Talib v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others" (PLD 2013 SC 775), has argued that the learned Special Judge (Rent) was within his competency to pass an order to deposit the fine as required by Section 9(b) of the Act and when fine was deposited accordingly, he could proceed with the application for ejectment. Hence, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned Courts below.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that vide order dated 17.03.2011, passed on application submitted by the respondent/landlady, the learned Special Judge (Rent), had directed the respondent/landlady to deposit amount of fine at the rate of 10% of the amount of annual rent, which the respondent/landlady had deposited on 21.03.2011. This being so, the tenaricy between the parties stood brought in conformity with the provisions of the Act.
6. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for ejectment, which was already pending and had been entertained before the deposit of fine, could not proceed, to my mind, this argument appears to be misconceived. The legal position in this regard has been clarified by the apex Court in its judgment, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent (PLD 2013 SC 775) mentioned supra, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under for the sake of convenience:--- "12. The question which may however arise is; what should be the fate of those petition(s)/application(s), in relation to existing tenancies, which have been entertained by the Rent Tribunal(s) under the impression that for two years period the provisions of Section 9 are not attracted, because of Section 8 ibid. And the matters are either pending before the Rent Tribunal where some (considerable) proceedings having already taken place, or the Rent Tribunal has finally decided the matter before it by overruling the objection of the respondent in the context of Section 9 and the further challenge thereto is pending in appeal or before the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, or even before this Court. In my opinion all such Courts seized of the matter shall halt the proceedings and should direct the original petitioner/applicant of the case to first pay the fine as mandated by Section 9, by determining the exact amount payable and by fixing the period in which the needful should be done; and if the amount of fine is paid, the case/matter shall be proceeded and decided on merits, if however, the order is not `complied and the needful is not done the original petition/application, of the landlord or the tenant as the case may be, shall be dismissed; with all the consequences to follow which have been highlighted above, while considering the effect of non-compliance of the order passed by the Rent Tribunal where a direction is issued for the deposit of the fine."
7. In the light of dictum laid down by the apex Court, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner his no substance, which is turned down. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.