' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---The petitioner through this petition has challenged the validity and maintainability of the ejectment petition filed by the respondent No,1/Mst. Najma Anees Shaikh and has prayed as under:-- "Under the submissions made above, it is therefore respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the ejectment petition pending before the Ld. Court of respondent No,2 filed by the respondent No,1 may kindly be rejected/quashed and the proceeding of the ejectment petition pending before the respondent No,2 may kindly be stayed till the final decision of this writ petition.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also kindly be awarded."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that although in this writ petition the petitioner has not impugned any order passed by the learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore, but has in fact questioned the validity and maintainability of the ejectment petition filed by respondent No,1 being landlord on the following grounds:--
1. That the respondent/ejectment petitioner at the time of filing the ejectment petition has annexed only one affidavit, whereas it is against the mandatory requirement of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.
2. The power of attorney placed on record is not attested by the Consulate of the concerned country.
3. That the respondent is seeking the ejectment of house No,27-A-Block Model Town Lahore, whereas in the documents, wrong address is mentioned.
4. That the respondent has not issued the notice before filing the ejectment petition as provided Section 21(1) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, through Courier Service.
5. The notices sent by the respondent No,1 to the petitioner were not accompanied by the Copy of the plaint and affidavit of the respondent and other relevant document, therefore, the mandatory requirement has not been fulfilled.
' This type of ejectment petition is liable to be buried at the initial stage.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments titled "Abdul Sattar v. Mst. Anar Bibi and others" (PLD 2007 SC 609), "Khalid Ahmad v. Abdul Jabbar Khan and others" (2005 SCMR 911), "Malik Muhammad Khaqan v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) and another" (2008 SCMR 428), "Mushtaq Ahmad Qadri v. Noor Hussain" (1993 MLD 1972), "Zahida Parveen and 3 others v.
Muhammad Saleem and another" (2003 CLC 1245), "Begum Azhari Bashir v. Abdul Hamid Chowdhary and 5 others" (1984 MLD 1047), "Taj Din and others v. Muhammad Ramzan and others"
(1989 MLD 234), "The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Mohammad Fazil Khan and others" (PLD 1975 SC 331), "Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Yousaf A. Haroon and another" (2002 CLC 1382), "Shafique Ahmad v. Mirza Muhammad Anwar Beg" (PLD 1968 Lahore 367), "Sohni Shah v. Momeen and others" (1988 CLC 67), "Muhammad Shabir and 3 others v. Mst. Janat Khatoon" (2015 CLC 102), "Khushi Muhammad and others v. WAPDA and others" (1992 CLC 2356).
3. In response of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent submits, that the petitioner has already filed application for leave to contest and all these objections have been raised therefore, this Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Firstly it is to be seen, whether the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner are applicable on the facts of the instant case. The judgments were perused and it is found that in all the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Court, proposition of civil nature relating to the interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure is involved, whereas according to the terms of section 34 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are not applicable to the proceedings conducted under the Punjab Rented Premise Act, 2009. Section 34 of the Act ibid is relevant which is reproduced as under:-- "Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order and Code of Civil Procedure not to apply.--- Save as otherwise expressly provided under this Act, the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (P.O. No,10 of 1984), and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) shall not apply to the proceedings under this Act before a Rent Tribunal, District Judge or Additional District Judge."
According to the terms of above section, the legislature has not made applicable the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the Code of Civil Procedure, to the proceedings under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 before a Rent Tribunal, District Judge or Additional District Judge.
Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in the judgment cited as Haji Khudai Nazar and another v. Haji Abdul Bari (1997 SCMR 1986), that the provisions of the C.P.C.
Unless specifically made applicable by the rent law do not apply in terms to the rent proceedings.
The relevant part of the observation is as under:-- "5. The first question is whether C.P.C. Is applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller.
The consensus is that the provisions of C.P.C. Unless specifically made applicable by the rent laws, do not apply in term to the rent proceedings, but the principles of C.P.C. So far they are not in conflict with the provisions of the rent laws and advance the cause of justice, may be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case.. (Underline is mine). In Mrs. Nawab Din Ahmed and another v. Faiz-urRehman (PLD 1982 Karachi 89) the applicability of C.P.C. In proceedings before the Rent Controller was considered by me and after referring to Ghulam Nabi v. Mukhtar Ahmed (PLD 1980 SC 206) and Imperial Dying and Printing Mills Karachi v. Safdar Ali (PLD 1971 Karachi 778) it was observed: "The consensus of opinion is that C.P.C. Is not applicable in terms to the proceedings before the Controller. It is only applicable to the extent provided by the Ordinance itself However, where no procedure has been provided it is just and convenient to apply the principles laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure for the conduct of proceedings. In applying these principles the penal provisions as provided by C.P.C., cannot be pressed in service. The principles of Order XXII can be applied for bringing the legal heir in record."
In the second judgment cited as Hanif and others v. Malik Ahmed Shah and another (2001 SCMR 577), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, while dealing with this proposition has observed as under:- "There is no gainsaying that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure may not be stricto sensu applicable to the proceedings before a Rent Controller, broad and equitable principles regulating the procedure of the proceedings before the Rent Controller can always be invoked and attracted in the interest of justice and fairplay."
6. Even otherwise, the learned Special Judge Rent, is not denuded of power to take the cognizance of the preliminary objections taken by the petitioner in the application for leave to contest. The petitioner should have first agitated all these objections before the proper forum i.e, Special Judge Rent instead of approaching this Court particularly under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. Needless to mention, that the office of Special Judge Rent has been created through a Special Law, therefore, the Special Judge Rent is obliged to perform his duties in terms of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, therefore, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are ill founded and misconceived.
8. In view of the above, this petition being devoid of any merits stands dismissed. Parting with the judgment, the learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore, is directed to dispose of all these objections, if agitated by the petitioner while deciding the petition for leave to contest.