' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---The petitioner through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution .Of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the validity of impugned judgment dated 17-12-2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissing his appeal against the order dated 23-12-2011 passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore whereby the said court while dismissing, his application for leave to contest directed him to vacate the demised premises within a period of one month.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondents filed petition against the petitioner for his eviction from demised shop mainly on the ground of willful default. The petitioner filed application for leave to defend. After going through the respective contentions of the parties, the learned Special Judge Rent vide impugned order dated 23-12-2011 refused to grant leave to contest the petition and directed the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the demised shop to the respondent within one month. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Appellate Court which was dismissed by the said court vide impugned judgment dated 17-12-2013.
Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below erred in law while passing impugned order/ judgment; that the petitioner is regularly paying rent and never committed default in doing so and this fact is proved from the receipts annexed with the petition; that the petitioner was inducted in the demised premises by one Muhammad Ayub Khan; that the respondents along with eight others are legal heirs of said Muhammad Ayub Khan but the respondents filed eviction petition without impleading all the legal heirs as such ejectment petition was not proceedable; that both the courts below without adverting to these aspects of the matter non-suited the petitioner in a summarily manner which is not warranted under the law.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents submits that impugned order/ judgment is well reasoned; that the default is apparent on the face of record; that the petitioner despite having knowledge of death of the previous landlord continued to deposit rent in his name which is not permissible under the law; that both the courts below after due appreciation of the material available on record passed eviction order and no occasion arises for this Court to intervene with the same in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was inducted in the demised premises by the predecessor in interest of the respondents namely Muhammad Ayoub Khan, who died on 12-1- 2008. After his death respondents along with eight others were 'declared his legal heirs through a declaratory decree dated 27-3-2010, therefore, by operation of law the present petitioner became their tenant. So far as objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that respondents/ landlords are co-sharer in the demised property and without impleading all the shareholders in the ejectment petition the same was not maintainable, it would be appropriate before proceeding further to read the definition of "landlord" provided in Section 2(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 which is reproduced as under:-- "(b) "landlord" means the owner of a premises and includes a person for the time being entitled or authorized to receive rent in respect of the premises; "
7. It is thus evident by all intents and purposes that a co-owner is a landlord and there is no embargo upon him to file eviction petition without joining rest of the co-sharers. Reliance is placed on case reported as Haji Abdullab Jan v. Anwar Khan (PLD 2000 Supreme Court 787). Therefore, objection of the learned counsel with regard to maintainability of ejectment petition is repelled.
8. On merits, it was the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not paid rent since January, 2008. In order to meet with this objection, the petitioner has placed on record a few receipts which show that the rent was not deposited on month to month basis rather collectively for two months and some times even for three months. Even despite having knowledge that the original landlord namely Muhammad Ayoub Khan had expired, the rent was deposited in the name of said deceased and the question which requires determination is that whether it is a technical default or the tenant has committed intentional and contumacious default. This question has been exhaustively dealt with by the Hon'ble apex Court in case reported as Khawaja Ghulam Mustafa v. Mian Waqar Ahmed (PLD 1980 SC 9) wherein it has been laid down as under:-- "Applying the same principle here too, the deposit of rent by the tenant in the names of large body of persons, namely, the heir of Haji Abdur Rashid instead of the respondents he had been specifically accepted as his landlord as explained earlier, was deliberate and contumacious and the Courts below were justified in not endorsing the validity of such a deposit. The Ordinance, whereas it gives certain protections and privileges to tenants, also imposes certain obvious obligations on them which, it may be stated, is their bounden duty to strictly follow."
8. In the present case, admittedly, ejectment petition was filed by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner was supposed to deposit the rent in the name of the respondents and his act of depositing the same in the name of deceased predecessor of the respondents by all means is to be considered a wilful and contumacious default. In case reported as Buzarg Jamil and another v.
Haji Abdul Bari and others ( PLD 2003 Supreme. Court 477) where the tenant used to deposit the rent in the name of Civil Judge instead of landlord the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:- "But in the case in hand the distinct feature is that the rent has not been deposited in favour of the landlords at all because deposit of rent in the name of Civil Judge would not serve the object of law i.e. Rent is to be paid or tendered to the landlord as per the provisions of section 13(2); Explanation (ii) of the Ordinance. Thus applying the dictum laid down by this Court in case of Khawaja Ghulam Mustafa (ibid) we are inclined to hold that the petitioners have failed to deposit or tender the rent in favour of the respondents/ landlords for the period commencing from Januav', 1999 to December, 2002, therefore, this being the position they have committed intentional and contumacious default in the payment of rent and the Controller and learned High Court vide judgments dated 13-12-2001 and 8-10-2002 respectively have rightly adjudged that they have committed default in the payment of rent."
9. Applying the principle propounded in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, I feel no hesitation in holding that by all means the act of the petitioner for not depositing rent in the name of the respondents, the petitioner has committed wilful and contumacious default in payment of rent as such he is liable to be evicted on this ground.
10. According to section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, the Rent Controller shall not allow leave to a respondent to contest unless the application discloses sufficient grounds for production of evidence. In view of the above factual position, there was no sufficient ground which would have persuaded the learned Special Judge Rent to allow his petition for leave to contest.
Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is dismissed. No order as to costs.