1. ' Through this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13.01.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Rent Lahore whereby the ejectment petition filed under Section 19 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 filed by Respondent No, 1 was allowed and the judgment dated 22.04.2016 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No, 1, a Charitable Society Trust, filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner contending that the petitioner/respondent obtained properly Bearing No, 55-C-III, Gulberg-III, Lahore on rent through a rent deed dated 11.06.2002 at monthly rent of Rs, 70.000/- per month for a period of five years i,e, till 10.06.2Q07. With the mutual consent of the parties, the tenure of tenancy was extended for a further period of five years through a written agreement with the stipulation that all other terms and conditions of rent agreement dated 11.06.2002 would remain intact/unaltered. According to clause 5 of the agreement the petitioner was bound to increase rent by 7.5% each year. In view of the agreement after 01.07.2009 the monthly rent became Rs, 116,133/- and after deduction of withholding tax the petitioner was bound to pay Rs, 108,031/- but the petitioner paid Rs, 106,811/- and thereafter till to date the rent has been paid at the same rate although it was to be increased @ 7.5% per annum in terms of the rent agreement. It was further contended that tenancy of rented premises expired on 11.06.2012 and in terms of clause 15(a) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 the petitioner was bound to hand over vacant possession of the rented premises. The petitioner/tenant filed petition for leave to contest and contended that the ejectment petition is filed by an unauthorized person. Under Section 92 of CPC it was mandatory for the respondent to seek permission from the office of the Advocate General Punjab before taking any legal step against the petitioner. The respondent resisted the petition for leave to contest. The learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore dismissed the petition for leave to contest on the ground of expiry of tenancy period vide order dated 13.01.2016 and directed the petitioner to vacate the demised premises within two months. To the extent of default, the learned Court framed issues and fixed the case for recording, evidence. The petitioner assailed the said order through filing an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment dated 22.04.2016. Hence the present petition.
3. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ejectment petition was filed by un- authorized person as such order/judgment passed by both the Courts below are illegal, unlawful and based on mis-reading and non-reading of documents. He further submits that the ejectment petition was filed in violation of Section 92, CPC, hence the same cannot be entertained.
4. ' On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No, 1. submits that admittedly the period of tenancy has expired, as such under Section 15(a) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, both the Courts below rightly dismissed the leave to contest filed by the petitioner and no illegality has been committed.
5. 4.Heard. Record perused.
6. 5.Admittedly, the respondent(landlord) filed ejectment petition on the ground of expiry of tenancy period on 11.06.2012. From the perusal of the petition for leave to contest the petition it is admitted that lease agreement was written between the parties on 11.06.2002 for a period of 5 years, which was later on extended for a further period of five years till 11.6.2012. It was settled between the parties that terms of the lease agreement will remain unaltered. When. the question was confronted to the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether the tenancy period was renewed after 11.06.2012, he admitted that no such renewal was made. It has been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ejectment petition was filed by unauthorized person, suffice it to say that perusal of the record shows that a resolution was passed by the Board of Trustees in its meeting held on 23.06.2014 that Mr. Ghufran Malik s/o Dr. Farrukh Hussain Malik is authorized to deal with all the matters relating to filing of enactment petition/legal notice in respect of Property No, 55-C-III, Gulberg III, Lahore on behalf of the Trust Society in any Court of law. The said resolution was signed by the members of the Board of Trustees of the Trust. As such the ejectment petition was rightly filed by authorized person on behalf of the Trust, as such the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is mis-conceived and the same is repelled.
7. 6.As regard the argument of the learned counsel that the ejectment petition was filed without prior permission of Advocate General, this plea is not sustainable as a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as Amina Welfare Trust (Regd.) through Executor Trustee vs. Ashfhq Ahmad Qureshi and others (PLD 2016 Lahore 460) has held that there is no need for permission of the Advocate General under Section 92 CPC to file any suit in private capacity.
8. 7.Furthermore, in Para 2 on merits of the petition for leave to contest, the petitioner himself admitted that "since the death of Mutwali, Mr. Farrukh Malik (Late), his wife and son namely Mrs. Nasreen and Mrs. Ghufran have been regularly receiving the rent from the applicant/respondent as per terms and conditions of said lease agreement". Additionally, in clause-B of the grounds it was stated that:-- "The first payment of Rs, 100,000/- was made on 01.08.2002 which had been renewed per annum regularly and in May, 2014, the applicant paid Rs, 161,000/- to Mr. Farrukh Malik (late Mutwali) in his life and after his death to Mr. Ghufran Malik and Mrs. Nasreen Malik."
9. On having admitted the payment of rent to Mr. Farrukh Malik, subsequently, the petitioner is stopped to question the authority of the ejectment petition and cannot approbation and reprobate or say hot and cool in same breath.
10. 8.According to Section 2(d) of the Act, 2009 the landlord means the owner of premises and includes a person for the time being entitled or authorized to receive rent in, respect of the premises. From the above, it is clear that Respondent No, 1 is landlord of the petitioner and the petitioner is admittedly paying rent to Respondent No,
1. In view of the above, both the Courts below rightly dismissed the petition for leave to defend of the petitioner and accepted the ejectment petition filed by the respondent.
11. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order/judgment passed by the learned Courts below and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect.
12. 10.The concurrent findings of facts are against the petitioner which are not called for any interference by this Court in absence of any illegality of any other error of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case of Zulfiqar Ali vs. Judge, Family Court & 7 Others (2007 MLD 1710).
13. 11.In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.