' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has questioned the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Tribunal to adjudicate upon the matter inter alia on the grounds that as per Section-8 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (Act) the landlord was required to bring within two years the existing tenancy in conformity with the provisions of the Act but he did not comply with the ,provisions of the aforesaid Section, as such the Rent Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
2. In support of his stance, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case law reported as Rana Abdul Hameed Talib ..v.. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (PLD 2013 Supreme Court 775)
3. Arguments heard. Record perused,
4. I am afraid the submission made by the learned counsel has no substance. No doubt by virtue of Section-8 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, it was the requirement of the law to bring all the existing tenancies in conformity with the provisions of the Act but the effect of non-compliance of the said provisions is given in Section-9 of the Act which reads as under:- "9. Effect of non-compliance.-- If a tenancy does not conform to the provisions of this Act, the Rent Tribunal shall not entertain an application under this Act
(a) on behalf of the tenant, unless he deposits a fine equivalent to five percent of the annual value of the rent of the premises in the Government treasury; and
(b) on behalf of the landlord, unless he deposits a fine equivalent to ten percent of the annual value of the rent of the premises in the Government treasury."
5. If the provisions of Section-9 of the Act are read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 8 ibid it becomes abundantly clear that non-conformity of the existing tenancies with the provisions of the Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent. Tribunal to adjudicate upon the Matter rather it places a restriction upon the Rent Tribunal not to proceed 'with the matter unless the fine as mentioned in section 9 is paid. The case law referred by the learned counsel also deals with the true interpretation and effect of the law on the subject. In the said case the Hon'ble apex Court observed as under:-- "From the above definitions and the survey of case law (supra) it is quite clear that the ministerial staff of the Rent Tribunal or for that matter the Tribunal itself shall not refuse to receive an application of the landlord/tenant, as the case may be, when brought before it rather on the first date when the matter comes before the Tribunal for the purposes of proceeding with it, the Tribunal shall ascertain from the applicant (of the case) if a validly executed and registered tenancy agreement (as per the provisions of the .Act 2009) is there and its availability on the record. If that not being so, whether the applicant has deposited the amount of fine as envisaged by Section 9 ibid. If both these aspects are missing, the Rent Tribunal shall halt further proceedings in the matter (emphasis supplied). No notice shall be issued to the respondent of the case and the applicant shall first be required and directed first to deposit the fine by specifying the exact amount as assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of the assertion of the applicant with regard to the rate of rent, within a specified period of time to be mentioned in the order. If the amount is deposited by the applicant/petitioner of the case within such period or the time further extended by the Tribunal, the matter shall be proceeded with further, otherwise the application shall be dismissed. However, such dismissal shall not operate as a bar in the way of the applicant to initiate the case afresh after depositing the fine or having a tenancy agreement (executed and registered according to law). It may be emphatically held that no proceeding to determine the case on merit shall be conducted and continued by the Court, until and unless the fine is deposited by the applicant. This is mandate of the law and the provision ibid (Section 9) is mandatory, which has to be given effect in letter and spirit, keeping in view the purpose and the object of the Act 2009. This, obviously is the interpretation and the effect of Section 9, when considered independent of Section 8 of the Act 2009, and shall apply to the future tenancies (emphasis supplied)."
6. In the light of above esteemed judgment and at the cost of -repetition, it is observed that even if the tenancy is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, even then the Rent Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rent matter subject to fulfillment of requirement of Section-9 of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent has not deposited the fine as per requirement of the law, therefore, this petition having no substance is dismissed in limine. It is, however, observed that in case the requirements of Section 9 are not fulfilled, the learned Rent Tribunal shall halt further proceedings and firstly require the respondent to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 9 within the specified period of time and then proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.
7. While dealing with the rent matters, this Court has observed that on number of occasions, the learned Rent Tribunals while adjudicating upon the rent matters where the tenancies are not in conformity with the provisions of Section-8 of the Act do not require the landlord/tenant as the case may be to first deposit the fine as envisaged in Section-9 of the Act which act is in violation of the mandatory provision of the law and the cited judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court. A copy of this order shall, therefore, be sent to all the District and Sessions Judges, in the province for its onward circulation to all the Rent Tribunals working in their respective districts for information and strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of law: