Muhammad Ali, J.- This constitutional petition is directed against order passed by the appellate Court, whereby the decision of the Special Judge (Rent) dismissing application for recov ery of arrears of rent and utility bills filed by respondent No.1 was reversed and the matter was referred back to the Rent Tribunal for decision on merits.
2. The necessary facts in brief are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as the "respondent" ) filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ("the Act") stating therein; that the petitioner was tenant in the rented premises owned by him, the petitioner handed over vacant possession of the property to the respondent in the month of February , 2015; that the petitioner left the premises without clearing arrears of rent and utility bills.
3. The petitioner contested the matter by filing an application for leave to appear and defend disputing factual pleas and maintainability of the petition. The learned Special Judge (Rent) vide order dated 21.09.2015 dismissed the petition filed by the respondent. The order was assailed before the learned appellate Court by filing appeal under section 28 of "the Act". The appeal was accepted, the findings of the Rent Tribunal were reversed vide order dated 15.04.2016. The application for leave to contest was allowed and the case was sent back to the Special Judge
(Rent) to decide the matter after recording evidence of the parties.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Rent Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a simple application for recovery of arrears of rent and for recovery of outstanding utility bills. In support of his arguments places reliance on case of Pervaiz Akhtar and another v. The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and four others (NLR 1990 SCJ 429). The learned counsel submits that order for recovery of arrears of rent and recove ry of money due on utility bills could only be passed if eviction petition is filed and while passing final order for eviction such relief could be granted. The grievance of the respondent if any could only be redressed by invoking jurisdiction of the Civil Court of plenary jurisdiction in terms of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. Conversely , learned counsel for the respondent by referring to sections 12, 13(3) and 19 of "the Act" submits that petition filed by the respondent is maintainable and was competently filed. Contends that in case tenant fails to fulfil his obligation, even without filing an eviction petition simple application for recovery of rent and utility bills could be instituted and the Special Judge (Rent) is competent to decide the same. The preamble of "the Act" provides remedy to the landlord to resolve any sort of dispute between the landlord and the tenant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The main objection of the petitioner is that Rent Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain independent application for recovery of arrears of rent and utility bills without there being any request for eviction of the tenant. In order to resolve the controversy preamble and section 13 of the Act are examined. These reads as under:- Preamble.
"An Act to regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of rented premises.
Whereas it is expedient to regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant, to provide a mechanism for settlement of their disputes in an expeditious and cost effective manner and for connected matters; It is hereby enacted as follows:- Section 13.
"13. Obligation of tenant.- (1) Subject to the tenancy agreement, a tenant shall --
(a) Keep the premises in this condition in which it was let out except for normal wear and tear;
(b) use the premises for the purpose for which it was let out;
(c) allow the landlord to enter the premises for the purpose of inspection or repair;
(d) hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on the determination of tenancy;
(e) not cause nuisance to the neighbours of the premises; and
(f) not make a structural change in the premises without the prior written consent of the landlord.
(2) If a tenant fails to fulfil an obligation under this Act or the tenancy agreement, the landlord may give notice in writing to the tenant specifying the act or omission and the remedial action to be taken by the tenant within a specified time.
(3) A landlord may file an application to a Rent Tribunal for an order directing the tenant to fulfil the obligation or may seek eviction of the tenant ." (Emphasis supplied)
8. Now, plain reading of Section 13 of "the Act" shows that there are certain obligations to be fulfilled by the tenant enumerated in sub rule 1 clauses 'a' to 'f' of section 13 of the "Act". In these clauses arrears of rent or outstanding utility bills are not mentioned as obligations of a tenant. The default in payment of rent is one of the ground for eviction of tenant under section 15 of "the Act". The application in terms of section 19 of "the Act" could be filed by a landlord or a tenant in case they fail to fulfill their obligations or there are grounds available for eviction of a tenant. In any case Rent Tribunal while passing the final order under section 25 of the "Act" could award arrears of rent. The final order is defined in section 2 (b) of "the Act" as under:- "(b) "final order" means a final order passed by a Rent Tribunal culminating the proceedings including an order in respect of adjustment of pagri, advance rent, security, arrears of rent, compensation or costs but shall not include an order passed in an execution proceedings;"(Emphasis supplied)
9. The most important aspect of the case on the basis of which the controversy could be resolved is by adverting to the definition of a tenant under section 2 (l) of "the Act" which reads as under:-
(l) "tenant " means a person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the occupation of a premises by him or by any other person on his behalf and includes;
(i) a person who continues to be in occup ation of the premises after the termination of his tenancy for the purpose of a proceeding under this Act;
(ii) legal heirs of a tenant in the event of death of the tenant who continue to be in occupation of the premises; and
(iii) a sub-tenant who is in possession of the premises or part thereof with the written consent of the landlord; (Emphasis supplied)
The definition of a tenant needs to be read with preamble of the Act which says:- "An Act to regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of rented premises.
Whereas it is expedient to regulate the relationship of landlord and tenant, to provide a mechanism for settlement of their disputes in an expeditious and cost effective manner"
This postulates two things, firstly, to regulate relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of rented premises, secondly, providing expedient cost efficient mechanism for settling such disputes. The definition of a tenant clearly indicates that a tenant is a person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as a consideration for the occupation of premises by him or by any other person on his behalf and includes; a person who continues to be in occupation of the premises after the termination of his tenancy for the purpose of a proceeding under this Act.
10. This clinches the whole issue, admittedly , the petitioner who was a tenant under the respondent is not in occupation of the property and has surrendered its possession to the landlord, therefore, by virtue of definition of a tenant, he ceases to be a tenant and as such the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end, the moment landlord is put in possession of the rente d property . The jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal under "the Act" could not be invoked by the parties who are no more in relationship of landlord and tenant. The relationship between the parties of landlord and tenant could not continue for an indefinite period of time even after vacating the premises by a tenant. This aspect of the case in context of the relevant provisions of "the Act" was not considered by the appellate Court while allowing the appeal. In this view of the matter , the respondent could not have invoked the jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal.
11. For what has been discussed above the findings of learned appellate Court are declared to be illegal and without lawful authority , same are set aside. This constitutional petition is allowed .