' JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J.---Facts of the case are that in the month of July 2000, the respondents rented out a premises, described in the suit, to the petitioner for a period of nine years, through an agreement/rent deed. Pursuant to the agreement, the monthly rent of the premises was fixed as Rs, 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only), which was to be enhanced @ 15% after every three years. The lease period was completed in the month of July 2009, but the premises was not vacated, hence the respondents filed an eviction application against the petitioner, which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 10th February, 2010, on the undertaking of the petitioner that the premises would be vacated in the month of April 2010, but failed to do so, hence the respondents filed an execution application, which was allowed. The petitioner filed an F.A.O. Bearing No, 77/2010 before this Court, which was disposed of on 28th June, 2010, on the undertaking that the petitioner shall vacate the premises by or before the 15th September, 2010, and shall regularly pay the monthly rent to the respondents.
2. The respondents claimed that since the extension of lease period is with consent of the parties, therefore, from July 2009 onwards, the rent was to be enhanced @ 15%. The respondents alleged that the increased rent has not been paid by the petitioner, as such, the same is an arrear of the rent and demanded the same. The petitioner refused to accept the demand of the respondents, the present suit has been filed. The petitioner filed its written statement, alleging therein that the agreement was expired in the month of July 2009, therefore, its terms and conditions are not applicable to the extended period of tenancy, therefore, the respondents are not entitled for the increased rent. The parties produced their respective evidence and recorded their statements. On conclusion of the case, the learned Civil Judge-IV, Quetta ("the Trial Court"), decreed the suit by means of the judgment and decree dated 29th April, 2011. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge-II, Quetta ("the Appellate Court"), which was dismissed on .31st December, 2011, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Courts below did not consider the fact that the period of tenancy was expired and thereafter, the extension of the tenancy w,e,f, August 2009 till 15th September, 2010, on the basis of a mutual consent, is deemed to be a fresh agreement, wherein increase in the rent was not agreed, therefore, the respondents were not entitled for the same, but the Courts below have failed to dilate upon this fact, which is an illegality and irregularity.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention and stated that the petitioner was in possession of the property as a tenant; pursuant to the rent agreement. He stated that though the said agreement was expired in the month of July 2009, but the parties, with consent, agreed to extend the leased period, therefore, the petitioner was bound by the agreement.
According to him, the petitioner was under obligation to pay the increased rent of the premises 15%, w,e,f, August 2009 till 15th September, 2010, but the same has not been done, therefore, the Courts below have rightly' decreed the suit.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
The premises was rented out to the petitioner by the respondents through an agreement dated 5th July, 2000, for a period of nine years, which was expired on July 2009, however, the lease period was extended with mutual consent by the parties in F.A.O. No, 70/2010 on 28th June, 2012, wherein the following order was passed by this Court:--- "This appeal has been presented against order and decree dated 26.05.2010, passed by the Executing Court.
' At the very outset; both the counsel for the parties alongwith respondent No, 1 appeared in Court and with consent agreed that if the appellant vacate the premises within 21/2 months, the appeal be disposed off accordingly.
' In view of their consent, the appellant is bound to handover vacant possession of the property bearing No, 1583, measuring 3010 Sq.Ft. Situated at Jinnah Road, Quetta, on or before 15th September, 2010, the appellant shall regularly deposit the monthly rent on or before 15th of every succeeding month. In case of failure, to pay the rent, he shall be liable to be evicted. In case the appellant fails to vacate the premises on 15th September, 2010, he shall be evicted from the premises without any further execution application and the order shall be implemented through concerned police station.
' In view of above, the execution application as well as present appeal stand disposed of in above terms."
6. It is important to mention here that clause (2) of the agreement deals with the extension of terms of lease for further period, which is reproduced herein-below:--- "The lease shall be for an initial term of 9 years commencing from July 2000 to July 2009. Before the expiry of 9 years term, the lessee shall notify the Lessor of its desire to extend the term of lease for any further period."
' After expiry of the earlier term of tenancy, the lease period was extended. The petitioner itself requested for extension of the tenancy, which was accepted by the respondents, consequently the lease period was extended w.e.f August, 2009 till 15th September, 2010, pursuant to the consent order. Clause (2) of the agreement provides an option to the parties to extend the lease period, therefore, the extended period of the tenancy with consent of the parties is in consonance with the said clause, as such, the agreement was alive and the extended period of the lease shall be deemed to be governed by it. Even otherwise, after expiry of tenancy agreement, if a tenant remains in possession of a property without the consent of the landlord, still the tenancy would continue to be governed by the terms and conditions of the expired agreement. Reliance has been placed on the cases titled as. Mrs. Zarina Khawaja v. Agha Mehboob Shafi, reported in PLD 1988 S.C.
190, and Muhammad Naseem Khan v.. United -Bank Limited, reported in PLD 2002 S.C.
753. Thus, the mutual consent between the parties for the extension of tenancy period makes an agreement alive and both the landlord and tenant are bound by its terms and conditions. Clause
(5) of the agreement describes that after expiry of every three years, the rent of the demised premises shall be enhanced @ 15%, therefore, the petitioner. Is bound to act upon it. Admittedly, the rent of the premises was lastly increased by the petitioners in the month of July 2006, and was fixed as Rs, 79,350/-, therefore, increase in the rent @ 15% was due w.e.f: August, 2009. The Courts below, after proper appraisal of the evidence and the material available on the record, came to a correct conclusion. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below, warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
' In view of what has been stated and discussed hereinabove the petition is accordingly dismissed.