Shujaat Ali Khan, J. Briefly put, property bearing No.43, situated in Main Bazar Street No.27, Canal Park, Gulberg-II, Lahore (hereinafter to be referred as "the rented premises") was hired on rent by father of the petitioner from father of respondent No.1 and after death of father of respondent No.1, respo ndents No.1 & 2 used to receive rent from father of the petitioner . Upon refusal on the part of respondents No.1 & 2 to receive rent, father of the petitioner sent Money Order qua monthly rent which was refused, thereafter , he filed application seeking permission to deposit the rent in Court. The learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore vide order , dated 06.07.2013, ordered for deposit of 5% of the annual value of rent vide order , dated 08.07.2013 and disposed of the application directing the petitioner to deposit monthly rent in Court. After death of father of the petitioner , in September 2013, the respondents disconnected electricity , sui-gas and water supply of the petitioner . Aggrieved by the act of the respondents qua disconnection of utilities, the petitioner filed an application under section 12 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (the Act, 2009) before the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore for restoration of the utility services. The learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore vide impugned order , dated 01.10.2013, again directed for deposit of 5% fine in terms of section 9(a) of the Act, 2009 on the ground that it was a new application. Aggrieved by re-fixation of 5% fine, the petitioner has filed this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner had already deposited 5% fine pursuant to order dated 06.07.2013, passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) he cannot be again burdened with 5% fine, thus, the impugned order passed by learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore is not sustainable.
3. Conversely , learned counsel representing the respondents contends that since it was fresh application on behalf of the petitioner , the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore has committed no illegality while passing the impugned order .
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, annexed with this petition.
5. The moot question involved in this petition is as to whether a tenant or landlord can be directed to deposit fine for the second time in terms of section 9 of the Act, 2009 where tenancy is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act, 2009. In my humble opinion, to resol ve the said controversy perusal of section 9 of the Act, 2009 is conducive which for convenience of reference is reproduced herein below: - "9. Effect of non-compliance.- If a tenancy does not conform to the provisions of this Act, the Rent Tribunal shall not entertain an application under this Act-
(a) on behalf of the tenant, unless he deposits a fine equivalent to five percent of the annual value of the rent of the premises in the Government treasury; and
(b) on behalf of the landlord, unless he deposits a fine equivalent to ten percent of the annual value of the rent of the premises in the Government treasury ."
From perusal of the afore-quoted provis ion it is crystal clear that where tenancy between the parties is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2009, the Rent Tribunal shall not entertain an application until and unless the requisite fine is deposited by the party approaching the said forum. The wording used in the afore- quoted provision does not suggest that fine would be leviable against a party only for once. Prima-facie, the imposition of fine under the referred provision is to encourage registration of tenancy between the parties. In case the parties, despite knowing that the grace period of two years' provided under section 8 of the Act, 2009 has already lapsed, have not opted to bring the tenancy in conformity with the provi sions of the Act, 2009 they are bound to face the brunt of such lapse.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner took specific plea that once the petitioner deposited the fine at the time of hearing of his earlier application, he could not be compelled to do so again as it amounts to double jeopardy . In this regard, I am of the view that the words used under section 9 ibid makes it crystal clear that no application shall be entertained by the Rent Tribunal without deposit of requisite fine when the tenancy between the parties is not in line with the provisions of the Act, 2009, thus no contrary interpretation is permissible.
7. Considering from another angle, a cursory glance over the Act, 2009 brings it to light that landlord as well as tenant have been provided remedies to move applications before the Rent Tribunal for redressal of their grievance.
In case the viewpoint of learned counsel for the petitioner is endorsed the same would amount to negate the provisions of section 9 of the Act, 2009.
8. If it is presumed that in the event of payment of fine the party is absolved to deposit the same for the second time then the anomaly would arise that if one party has already deposited the fine, the second party in the event of filing of an application before the Rent Tribunal would not be liable to pay the same.
9. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are suggestive of the fact that once fine has been deposited by a party , the defect in the tenancy being not in conformity with the provisions of the Act, 2009 stands cured. In this regard, I am unable to subscribe to the viewpoint of the learned counsel for the reason that the defect in the tenancy shall not be cured until and unless the same is brought in conformity with the provisions of the Act, 2009.
10. It is well established by now that while interpreting provision of a Statute the ordinary meanings attached to a word should be considered. Insofar as the case in hand is concerned, the afore-qu oted provision does not suggest that once a party has deposited the fine it cannot be burdened again if he approaches the Rent Tribunal with a fresh application.
11. For what has been discussed above, I see no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.