Rent controller. Defaulter ko kese nikalna hai. Difference between section 20 and 24.

مالک مکان، بیوی بچوں کے علاوہ اپنی دیگر اہل خانہ کے لیے بھی مکان خالی کروا سکتا ہے.

(2017 MLD 1137)

Eviction of tenant

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P No.36692/2021

Muhammad Rabi Zahid

Versus

Abdul Razzaq Manzoor etc.

J U D G M E N T

Date of Hearing 29.05.2023

Petitioner By:

Mr. A.W. Chaddha, Advocate.

Respondent

No.1 By:

Mr. S.M. Zeeshan Mirza, Advocate

Anwaar Hussain J: The petitioner has laid challenge to the

orders dated 12.04.2021 and 21.05.2021 passed by respondent No.3

(“the Rent Tribunal”) and respondent No.2 (“the Appellate Court”)

respectively. By virtue of the former order, ejectment of the petitioner

from the rented premises fully described in the eviction petition has

been ordered; whereas through the latter, the order dated 12.04.2021

has been upheld.

Plea of petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand,

the Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 12.04.2021, partially accepted the

petitioner‟s application for leave to contest the eviction petition, filed

by respondent No.1 („the respondent‟), and framed Issue No.1 with

regard to the default; and on the other hand, the Rent Tribunal

partially accepted the eviction petition on the ground of default that is

self-contradictory and this aspect has escaped the notice of the

Appellate Court below as well. He further submits that once the issue

with regard to default had been framed, ejectment of the petitioner

could not have been ordered without recording of evidence and the

determination of the issue framed to this effect. Further avers that the

learned fora below have applied Section 20 of the Punjab Rented

Premises Act, 2009 (“the Act”) while reaching the conclusion that

W.P No.36692/2021

the petitioner is admittedly a defaulter in respect of the rent for the

month of September, 2020 whereas in-fact the applicable provision of

the Act is Section 24, inasmuch as once an eviction petition is filed

and the parties are before the Rent Tribunal, the rent is to be

determined and paid as per the direction of the Rent Tribunal, if there

is dispute regarding the amount of rent, which is precisely the

situation in the present case.

Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent supports the

impugned orders and submits that Section 7 of the Act contemplates

that in case a landlord refuses to receive the rent, it is obligatory on

part of the tenant (the petitioner) to either tender the same through

money order or approach the Rent Tribunal by way of filing an

application for deposit of the rent and in the instant case, such an

application has not been made, at least for the deposit of rent for the

month of September, 2020 as per the contents of the leave to contest

filed by the petitioner, therefore, both the Courts below have correctly

rendered the impugned findings.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted between the

parties. It is the case of the petitioner that the tenancy commenced in

the year 2018 for a period of 10 years and the monthly rent was settled

as Rs.12,000/-, which due to agreed annual increment was Rs.13,200/-

per month in the month of September, 2020, however, the respondent,

with malafide intention, filed the eviction petition in July, 2020 on the

basis of a forged tenancy agreement purportedly executed in the year

2019 and also kept on receiving the rent @ Rs.13,200/- but refused to

issue receipt for the month of September, 2020 and when the

petitioner appeared before the Rent Tribunal, after publication of

notice issued to effect the service of the petitioner in the eviction

petition, the petitioner filed leave to contest on the date fixed and

volunteered to deposit the monthly rent as per direction of the Rent

Tribunal. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that the

W.P No.36692/2021

tenancy between the parties commenced in the year 2019, for a period

of one year only against payment of monthly rent @ Rs.44,000/- and

the petitioner is defaulter since April, 2020. The Rent Tribunal

partially allowed the leave to contest to determine whether the

petitioner is entitled to receive the amount of security under the

agreement, which the petitioner relied upon and whether the said

agreement is valid for a period of 10 years, however, the leave was

partly refused on the ground that the petitioner has admittedly not paid

the rent for the month of September, 2020 and, hence, liable to be

evicted on the basis of admitted default in the light of Section 20 of

the Act, whereas the petitioner side contends that applicable provision

of Act is Section 24. Therefore, the question that requires

determination from this Court is articulated as under:

 What is the true import of Sections 7, 20 and 24

of the Act and whether the petitioner’s leave has

been rightly refused, by correct application of

law, while treating him as a defaulter?

Before examining the legality of the impugned orders whereby

application of the petitioner for leave to contest was partially declined

and answering the legal question formulated hereinabove, it will be

appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the impugned order

passed by the Rent Tribunal that reads as under:

“5. Perusal of record reflects that the parties are at

variance regarding the execution of different rent

agreements. The ejectment petitioner has relied his

stance on rent agreement dated 03.09.2019 and the

applicant/respondent has relied his stance on rent

agreement dated 01.11.2018. It is observed that both

these agreements are not registered……….. It is

observed that the ejectment petitioner has claimed

default in payment of rent with the contentions that the

respondent has failed to pay the rent of demised

premises from the month of April, 2020……It is also

important to note here that the applicant/respondent in

parawise reply No.2 (on merits) of his leave to contest

contended that he has paid the monthly rent till August,

2020 and contended that the ejectment petitioner with

malafide intention prevaricated from receiving the

W.P No.36692/2021

monthly rent of September, 2020 on one or other pretext

just to achieve his ulterior motives and the respondent is

ready to deposit the rent for the month of September,

2020 and so on in this forum. If the ejectment petitioner

has refused to receive the rent then under the law remedy

was available to the respondent either to deposit or tender

the rent as per section 20 of PRPA, 2009………and it is

settled law that „when law prescribes a manner for doing

of a particular thing that thing is to be done in the manner

which is provided by law‟. Since the applicant/

respondent has not adopted the prescribed mode under

the law for payment of rent in case of refusal of

landlord to receive the rent. The applicant/respondent

has failed to pay or tender any rent to the landlord

through money order or deposit in the bank account or

he has failed to file any application before rent tribunal.

The applicant/respondent in parawise reply No.2 (on

merits) of his leave to contest himself admitted that he

has not paid the rent from September, 2020 and onwards.

Admittedly, the applicant/respondent is in possession of

demised premises as tenant. If applicant/respondent has

admitted his status as tenant on the basis of rent

agreement dated 01.11.2018 then he should approach to

the rent tribunal for grant of permission to deposit the

rent on the basis of agreement dated 01.11.2018 (relied

by the applicant/respondent) but he has failed to do so.

Hence, this tribunal has no hesitation to hold him a

defaulter in payment of rent. Hence, default on part of

the applicant/respondent is also proved which is also a

statutory ground for eviction of tenant provided u/s 15 (b)

of PRPA, 2009.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The payment of the rent and what constitutes default thereof,

under the law, is governed and determined by a conjunctive

application of not only Sections 7, 20 and 24 of the Act but also

Section 15 thereof. Section 7 reads as under:

“7. Payment of rent.– (1) A tenant shall pay or tender

the rent to the landlord in the mode and by the date

mentioned in the tenancy agreement.

(2) If the date of payment is not mentioned in the

tenancy agreement, a tenant shall pay or tender the rent

not later than tenth day of the following month.

(3) If the mode of payment is not mentioned in the

tenancy agreement, a tenant shall pay or tender the rent to

W.P No.36692/2021

the landlord through money order or deposit in the bank

account of the landlord.”

Whereas Section 20 of the Act reads as under:

“20. Application for deposit of rent.–

(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if a

landlord refuses to accept the rent, the tenant may file

an application in the Rent Tribunal for deposit of the

rent.

(2) The Rent Tribunal shall, without prejudice to the

rights of the landlord, allow the tenant to deposit the rent

for the period for which the landlord has refused to

receive the rent.

(3) The Rent Tribunal shall inform the landlord of the

deposit of rent by the tenant and may pass an order

permitting the landlord to collect the same.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Section 7 of the Act merely states that a tenant shall pay or tender rent

in accordance with mode and date recorded in the tenancy agreement

and if no date and/or manner has been mentioned in the tenancy

agreement, the tenant shall follow the date and mode prescribed under

Section 7 i.e., pay or tender rent not later than 10th day of the

following month and the rent shall be paid through money order or

deposit in the bank account. In the instant case, the tenancy agreement

dated 03.09.2019 relied upon by the respondent depicts that the rent

was to be paid between 1

st to 5th of every month in advance. There is

no mention of the bank account of the respondent in the said

agreement. So even if the said agreement is taken as a genuine

document to have been executed between the parties governing their

relationship as landlord and tenant, the obligation of the petitioner to

pay the rent was by 5

th of every month and in case the respondent had

refused to receive the same and issue receipt accordingly, the

petitioner as tenant was obligated to tender the same through money

order or deposit in the bank account of the respondent. In the instant

case, since the agreement does not provide the details of the bank of

the respondent, tender could have been made through the money order

W.P No.36692/2021

only. Section 7 is to be then read with Section 15 of the Act to

determine as to the time limit available, under the law, to a tenant (the

petitioner) to tender the rent upon refusal of the landlord (the

respondent), through money order or by filing an application in the

Rent Tribunal, failing which the tenant becomes a defaulter. Section

15 envisages the grounds for eviction that also includes default as one

of the grounds of eviction. The said provision reads as under:

“15. Grounds for eviction.–

(a) …….

(b) the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent, within a

period of thirty days after the expiry of the period

stipulated in section 7;”

(Emphasis supplied)

The averments of the petitioner that he has not paid the rent for the

month of September, 2020 and non-filing of the application with the

Rent Tribunal for deposit of rent has been treated as an admission of

default is not justified when conjunctive reading of Section 7 with

Section 15(b) is made while keeping in view the agreement dated

03.09.2019 upon which the respondent himself has relied. A period of

thirty days with effect from 5

th of every month was available to the

petitioner to tender the rent. Rent for September, 2020 was due by 05th

of the said month and when read with Section 15(b), the petitioner had

a period of further thirty days that extends to 05.10.2020. The

petitioner first appeared before the Rent Tribunal, on 29.09.2020, well

within the period available to the petitioner in terms of Section 15(b)

of the Act and he could have filed the application in terms of said

provision till 05.10.2020. However, after obtaining knowledge of

pendency of the eviction petition, as also the grounds of eviction and

the assertion of default in terms of agreement dated 03.09.2019, the

petitioner was not obligated to send any money order or file a separate

application for deposit of rent for the month of September, 2020

before 05.10.2020 as the Rent Tribunal, on 29.09.2020, adjourned the

case for 09.10.2020. It is admitted feature of the case that on

W.P No.36692/2021

09.10.2020, the petitioner filed leave to contest in which a categorical

challenge was laid to the veracity of the tenancy agreement relied

upon by the respondent, so also about the rate of rent with the

willingness to deposit the amount of rent for the month of September,

2020 as per direction of the Rent Tribunal. The parties were before the

Rent Tribunal in the month of September, 2020 in respect of which

the statement of petitioner regarding non-payment of rent has been

treated as admitted default and made basis of the eviction ignoring the

fact that Section 24 of the Act immediately comes into play in such

situation that reads as under:

“24.

Payment of rent and other dues pending

proceedings.– (1) If an eviction application is filed, the

Rent Tribunal, while granting leave to contest, shall direct

the tenant to deposit the rent due from him within a

specified time and continue to deposit the same in

accordance with the tenancy agreement or as may be

directed by the Rent Tribunal in the bank account of the

landlord or in the Rent Tribunal till the final order.

(2) If there is a dispute as to the amount of rent due or rate

of rent, the Rent Tribunal shall tentatively determine the

dispute and pass the order for deposit of the rent in terms of

sub-section (1).

(3) In case the tenant has not paid a utility bill, the Rent

Tribunal shall direct the tenant to pay the utility bill.

(4) If a tenant fails to comply with a direction or order of the

Rent Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal shall forthwith pass the final

order.”

(Emphasis supplied)

It is the mandate of law in terms of Section 24 of the Act that if

eviction petition is filed, it is the Rent Tribunal which, while granting

leave to contest, shall direct the tenant to deposit the rent due from

him, within the specified time, more particularly when the parties are

at variance as to the rate of the monthly rent. Certainly, there is no

gainsaying that the petitioner had appeared before the Rent Tribunal

on 29.09.2020 and the matter was adjourned to 09.10.2020 when the

petitioner volunteered to pay the rent as per the direction of the Rent

Tribunal, in terms of Section 24 of the Act, that shows bona-fides on

W.P No.36692/2021

part of the petitioner. Had the tenant not appeared before the Rent

Tribunal prior to lapse of time triggering default in terms of

conjunctive reading of Section 7 read with Section 15(b) of the Act,

the situation would have been different and he could have been said to

have defaulted as this would have meant that he either did not appear

before the Rent Tribunal, consciously, to avoid payment of rent or

would have not been in knowledge of the filing of the eviction

petition; therefore, he was obligated to tender rent in accordance with

Section 7 read with Sections15 and 20 of the Act. However, this is not

the situation in the instant case as the petitioner had appeared before

the Rent Tribunal prior to the lapse of time triggering default and the

applicability of Section 20 subsided to give way to Section 24 of the

Act.

The interplay of Section 24 with reference to Section 20 also

came for adjudication before this Court in case reported as “Mst.

Rehana Fayyaz v. 1. Rent Tribunal/Civil Judge 1st Class, Rahim Yar

Khan, 2. Muhammad Iqbal” (2015 CLJ 732) and it was held that a

plain reading of Section 20 shows that it was enacted to provide for

meeting a specific situation that might arise in the event of a

landlord‟s refusal to receive the rent from the tenant and should this

happen, the tenant would be able to approach the Rent Tribunal

seeking permission to deposit the rent due from him so as to

circumvent an attempt on part of a clever landlord who might refuse

to receive rent from the tenant and then institute an eviction petition

on the ground that the tenant had committed willful default in the

payment of the rent whereas Section 24 comes into play after the

filing of an eviction petition. This Court is of the opinion that the

scope, purview and object of Sections 20 and 24 of the Act are quite

distinct, and they are intended to achieve two different objectives and

one provision cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to defeat the

object and purpose of the other. The legislature has deliberately and

consciously incorporated the said two provisions with distinct object

W.P No.36692/2021

with regard to default. Therefore, the default prior to filing of eviction

petition and subsequent to the filing of eviction petition has to be

viewed through the prisms of Section 20 and 24 respectively and both

the Courts below have erred by not appreciating this distinction.

The matter can be examined from another angle. Had there

been default by the petitioner prior to filing of the eviction petition in

such an unambiguous manner as not to require recording of any

evidence, the Rent Tribunal would have been justified in passing the

order of eviction straightaway; however, when the Rent Tribunal itself

came to the conclusion that there are two tenancy agreements and

veracity thereof is yet to be determined that requires recording of

evidence and the issue as to default prior to filing of eviction has been

also framed, the default in post-filing of eviction petition becomes

relevant only if it is made subsequent to the direction issued by the

Rent Tribunal under Section 24 of the Act that amply caters for the

right of the landlord to receive rent during the pendency of the

eviction petition.

10. In view of what has been discussed above, the instant petition is

allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. As a consequence, the

Rent Tribunal may pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 24 of

the Act directing the petitioner to pay rent, till the final adjudication of

the eviction petition, at the rate and manner to be determined by the

Rent Tribunal, in accordance with law.

(ANWAAR HUSSAIN)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting

Judge

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.