Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Special Judge (Rent), Lahore, whereby the Special Judge (Rent) ordered recording of evidence without granting leave to contest in specific terms.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the rented shop was given to the father of respondent Muhammad Latif on rent through written rent agreement dated 24.1.1983 which was later on got registered with special Judge (Rent) on 12.1.2010. The shop was initially given on rent y Mrs. Roshan Qamar (deceased) who was owner of the shop and is tow succeeded by the petitioners. After the death of original owner the Petitioners were declared as the only legal heirs vide judgment and ecree of Civil Judge Lahore dated 08.9.2006. On expiry of original enant Muhammad Latif who died on 15.12:2013, his legal heirs sons tepped into his shoes and are tenants in the rented premises. The Petitioners filed ejectment petition for vacation of rented premises on round of default in payment of rent. The respondents entered .ppearance and filed application for leave to contest under Section 22 f the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ("Act").
3.The application for leave to contest was decided by Special udge (Rent) vide order dated 20.04.2016. On the basis of pleadings of he parties, Special Judge (Rent) framed an issue to the effect whether respondents are wilful defaulters in payment of enhanced rent as well s entire rent from the year 2009. The onus to prove this issue was on he petitioners. The instant petition has been filed on a short question hat the learned Special Judge (Rent) without allowing application for leave to contest has framed the issue.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is to provision in the rent law to record evidence before granting leave to on test, in this way, the learned Special Judge (Rent) has traveled beyond the parameter of his jurisdiction as laid down in the Act. submits that the order was passed without application or judicial mind and is against the basic spirit of the Act.
5.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact through order dated 20.4.2016 the application was. Bowed and in no specific terms it was written. Since the issue has seen framed it hardly makes any difference.
6.I have heard respective arguments of learned counsels for he parties and have carefully gone through the record.
7.The learned Special Judge (Rent) keeping in view divergent leas of the parties came to the conclusion that parties are at factual ariance regarding rate of rent as well as period of default, it was pecifically held that issuance and receiving of legal notice is a Luestion of facts which requires evidence in order to settle dispute between the parties. It was for this reason that issue was framed from ivergent contentions of the parties. The learned Special Judge (Rent) on cluded that there were triable issues in the case which requires ecording of evidence. This exercise was carried out strictly in .ccordance with Section 22 of the Act which says that a Special Judge Rent) shall not allow the respondent in an' ejectment petition to defend the application unless he obtains leave to contest, sub-rule (4) of Section 22 of the Act says that Special Judge (Rent) sh'll not allow leave to contest to a respondent, unless, the application discloses sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence and sub-rule (6) clearly contemplates that in case leave to contest is refused the Special Judge (Rent) shall pass the final order. Here in this case the final order was not passed and Special:Judge (Rent) felt a need to record evidence of the parties, therefore, for all intents and purposes the application for leave to contest was allowed, otherwise the result would have been passing of final order against tenant which is not the case. The rent cases under the Act are governed by a special procedure unlike ordinary civil litigation where the defendant of the case in the-ordinary course, without being required by the Court is entitled to defend himself by filing a written statement. In certain classes of cases in ordinary civil jurisdiction or special jurisdiction a summary procedure can be prescribed and adopted; such as, the suits under Order XXXVII of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In these category of cases the defendant is not entitled to defend the suit or the lis as a matter of course or a right but is required first to seek the leave of the Court to defend the case which is imperative. Thus if the Tribunal on the basis of the grounds set out in the leave application and a document, finds that respondent has raised triable issues it must proceed in an ordinary way by recording evidence. If the conclusion is not happily worded or no specific word for grant of leave is mentioned but issue has been framed it means that leave has been granted.
8. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.