Ejectment petition under Section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (hereinafter called The Act) was filed by Mubarak Ali, Respondent No, 3 (hereinafter called the respondent) against petitioner Muhammad Nasir Majeed on the grounds of default in payment of monthly rent and personal need. The petitioner filed an application for leave to contest under Section 22 of The Act, he denied the relation of landlord and tenant and contended therein that he is in possession of the disputed premises under an agreement to sell dated 26.01.2013 and that rent deed dated 06.05.2011 was cancelled. Learned Rent Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26.04,2016 dismissed the application and ordered petitioner's ejectment from the disputed premises. Aggrieved with the order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court vide impugned order dated 26.09.2016.
2.Now the petitioner had filed instant writ petition challenging the validity of the impugned order/judgment on the ground that these are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that learned trial Court could not proceed into the ejectment petition as question of title of the disputed property was subjudice between the parties before Court of competent jurisdiction; that order pasied by the two Courts below under Section 22 of The Act is violative to the Constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 4 and 8 regarding protection of fundamental rights and fair trial and that petitioner was deprived of his legal rights.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner denied relationship of landlord and tenant, as after cancelling rent agreement, he entered into agreement to sell with the respondent and on the strength of said agreement, the possession of the petitioner over the disputed property is as owner but both Courts below failed to appreciate this fact and without allowing leave to contest or framing of issues and recording of evidence decided the factual controversy on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Further contended that rent agreement was not got registered in terms of Sections 8 and 9 of The Act, as such, the ejectment petition was not proceed able. Also contended that after entering into the agreement to sell, petitioner's status was changed from tenant as to. Owner of the disputed premises and in this respect he also filed 'a suit for specific performance of the agreement, which according to him, barred the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal but this clear legal position was overlooked by both Courts below. Learned counsel concluded his arguments while seeking that both impugned order/judgment may be declared illegal and without any effect and further that Section 22 of The Act may be declared as illegal and ultra-vices to Articles 4 and 10(a) of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4.On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent defended impugned order/judgment and contended that Respondent No, 3 landlord is living abroad and after handing over possession of the disputed premises on rent to the petitioner left the country. The petitioner taking the advantage of his absence refused to pay monthly rent has taken false plea that he is in possession on the basis of agreement to sell, whereas, agreement does not create any right unless it is enforced vis- a-vis ownership of the property. He added that suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance had been dismissed and that the learned Courts below correctly appreciated law and facts and passed justified legal and effective order/judgment, whereas, this petition is filed without any legal backing; hence, deserve to be dismissed.
5.I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that rent agreement in respect of disputed premises was executed between the parties on 06.05.2011. Initially it was not got registered with the concerned authority but subsequently it was done so, respondent paid penalty and got the rent agreement regularized, therefore, non-registration of the rent agreement at the initial stage is not creating any negative effect upon the claim of the respondent. Reliance can be placed on the dictum laid down in "Rana Abdul Hameed Talib versus Additional District Judge, Lahore and others'' (NIA.I. 2013 Civil 404).
7.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as there was an agreement to sell-executed between petitioner and the respondent and in this respect a civil suit for specific performance was also filed; therefore, the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Tribunal was ousted. It is noteworthy that respondent in Para No, 4 of the ejectment petition. Specifically taken the stance that petitioner prepared a fraudulent agreement showing that he agreed to sell the disputed premises to him for consideration and also received earnest money. It may be added here that the petitioner filed a civil suit on 26.05.2015 for specific performance of alleged agreement dated 26.01.2013, however, said civil suit was dismissed on 19.07.2016 by the learned trial Court. Though, appeal against said judgment and decree was filed by the petitioner on 02.08.2016 in which the learned appellate Court passed injunctive order from .02.08.2016 to 6.08.2016 but the petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that said stay or injunctive order was extended. Leaving these facts aside principally speaking manner entering into agreement to sell is not creating ownership rights in favour of the alleged vendee unless such agreement is enforced in due course of law. In this respect reliance is placed on the case law of this Court reported as "Ghulam Hussain vs. Malik Muhammad Niaz and others" (2012 YLR 1464 Lahore) and "Syed Tamtarraq Mohsan Shah vs. Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and 6 o thers" (PTA 2011 Lahore 728).
At the most, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner can be considered only his version but unless it is proved, established and enforced, he cannot get any benefit out of it. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that ejectment petition was addressed to the learned Civil Judge and not to the Court of Rent Tribunal but if it is the position, then it was only a technical. defect and cannot effect the rights of the respondent as were acknowledged by two Courts below and for this technical mistake, if committed, by the respondent, cannot stand against basic right and in this respect reliance is placed on the case law of this Court reported as "Muhammad Nayab vs. Addl. District Judge, etc." (PU 2014 Lahore 995)
8.It is also appropriate to mention here that though it is contention of the petitioner that rent agreement was rescinded/ cancelled by the parties, it is noteworthy that this expression is also recorded in the alleged agreement to sell dated 26.01.2013, which has vehemently been denied by the respondent, therefore, rescinding tenancy agreement is only version without any proof and of no benefit to the petitioner.
9. The last contention raised and prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as Section 22 of The Act is ultra vires to Articles 4 and 8 of The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as it deprived the petitioner of his right to have a fair trial and it also affected his fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution, therefore the said section is to be struck down from the statute by this Court is exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
10. This Court is not inclined to endorse view point of the counsel because The Act, is special law which provides comprehensive legal frame work to regularize legal matters between landlord and tenant vis-a-vis rented premises.
11. Seetion 22 of The Act is reproduced here:--
22. Leave to contest.----(1) A Rent Tribunal shall not allow a respondent to defend the application unless he obtains leave to contest.
2.Subject to this Act, a respondent shall file an application for leave to contest within ten days of his first appearance in the Rent Tribunal.
3.An application for leave to contest shall be in the form of a written reply stating grounds on which the leave is sought and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the respondent, copy of all relevant documents in his possession and, if desired, affidavits of not more than two witnesses.
4.The Rent Tribunal shall not allow leave to contest to a respondent unless the application discloses sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence.
5. The Rent Tribunal shall decide the application for leave to context within a period of fifteen days from the date of its filling.
6. If the leave to contest is refused or the respondent has failed to file application for leave to contest within the stipulated time, the Rent Tribunal shall pass the final order.
12. Perusal of above section reveals that this section of The Act is integral and very important part of the entire scheme of the special law and same cannot be taken in isolation without considering the other provisions of law. In the instant matter, the petitioner himself opted to avail opportunity under Section 22 of The Act and filed application for leave to contest, when failed he filed an appeal without raising any objection that Section 22 of The Act is ultra-wires' to the Constitution, therefore, now in the instant writ petition, he for the first, time has raised this legal objection which is not sustainable. Accordingly, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are repelled. 13.A careful analysis of the entire record, I do not see any jurisdictional error committed by the Courts below.
14.Writ petition being devoid of force stands dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.