SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J.---Briefly put, the petitioner filed an ejectment petition against respondent No,2 in terms of section 15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. Respondent No,2 filed an application for leave to contest with the averments that he was occupying rented premises on the basis of valid tenancy deed without any default on his part, thus, proceedings before the learned Special Judge (Rent) were not maintainable. After submission of application for leave to contest the petitioner filed an application for rejection of application filed by respondent No,2 for leave to contest. Respondent No,2 filed reply to the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of his application seeking leave to contest. The learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore, vide order, dated 12.02.2014, while rejecting the application filed by respondent No,2 for leave to contest ordered for his eviction from the rented premises within sixty days. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore respondent No,2 filed an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Lahore (respondent No,1) vide order, dated 03.04.2015, accepted the said appeal.
Aggrieved by the verdict of the appellate Court, the petitioner has filed instant petition.
2. The legal prepositions put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner can be summarized in the words that when default on the part of respondent No,2 was established, the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore did not commit any illegality while dismissing his application for leave to contest; that tenancy between the parties is admitted and respondent No,2 while committing default in payment of monthly rent put himself at the mercy of the Court; that respondent No,2 could not retain rented premises after expiry of tenancy period and if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that the parties continued with the tenancy despite its expiry the same was to be considered on month to month basis; that while setting aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore, respondent No,1 has advanced no reason rather the matter has been decided in a casual manner and that without conceding in any manner, the petitioner is ready to return the amount of Pagri provided respondent No,2 evicts the rented premises. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon an unreported judgment of the apex Court of the country, dated 31.12.2014, rendered in the case of Tauseef Hussain v. Zaheer Ahmad Babar (Civil Appeal No,882-L of 2013).
3. Conversely, learned counsel representing respondent No,2, while defending the impugned order, submits that according to the contents of the ejectment petition tenancy between the parties was oral in nature whereas as per contents of application regarding rejection of application for leave to contest the petitioner referred to some rent deed; that according to the ejectment petition, the petitioner claimed default on the part of respondent No,2 whereas in the subsequent proceedings he took U-turn and-stated that as respondent No,2 failed to pay rent at increased rate he fell within the category of defaulter and that in the ejectment petition the petitioner referred to a legal notice but the same was not brought on record seemingly for the reason that either the same was not in field or ran contrary to the pleadings of the petitioner. Relies on Zaheer Ahmad Babar v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others (2015 YLR 1617).
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, annexed with this petition, as well as the case-law cited at the bar.
5. According to the contents of the ejectment petition tenancy between the parties was oral in nature and the same started in the year 2001 whereas respondent No,2 contested the matter on the ground that initially premises were hired on rent by his father on the basis of a lease agreement in the year 1984, and after his death he has been putting up in the said premises as tenant. In support of his contention he produced an agreement during the proceed-ings. before the appellate stage. Inconsistent pleas on the part of the petitioner on different occasions fully justified acceptance of the application filed by respondent No,2 seeking leave to contest.
6. The legality of agreement regarding lease in perpetuity against Pagri of Rs,1,50,000/- would be adjudged by the forum o concerned after recording evidence of the parties and in case the petitioner succeeds that the same was not properly executed document he would be entitled for decision in his favour regarding eviction of respondent No,2.
7. It is very strange to note that while .deciding the matter learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore in concluding lines of Para' No,5 of its order held in unequivocal words that default on the part of the applicant (respondent No,2 herein) was not established. Further, though the question regarding payment of amount of Pagri by the father of respondent No,2 was before him but he observed that in absence of any evidence same was inconsequential. Though the learned Special Judge (Rent)
Lahore held that after expiry of period of tenancy same was on month-to-month basis but he did not pay any heed to the fact that in view of inconsistent pleas of the petitioner at various occasions the application filed by respondent No,2 seeking leave to contest could not be dismissed.
8. It is very ironical that on the one hand the petitioner has taken the plea that there was no lease between the parties but on other offered for repayment of amount of pagri subject to the condition that respondent No,2 evicts the premises. In this backdrop, it is not feasible to determine said question without recording evidence of the parties.
9. Now coming to the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the view that the same is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch in the said case the claim of the landlord was not based upon inconsistent pleas.
10.Though many points touching the merits of the case were raised before this Court, however, I am restraining myself to comment upon those lest it may prejudice the case of either party before the for a below.
11. For what has been noted above, instant petition is dismissed with a direction to the learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore to decide the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner by or before 30.07.2017 positively under intimation to this Court through the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). For the purpose he may proceed with the matter on even day-to-day basis. There shall be no order as to costs.