Eviction petition dismissed due to the ground for eviction was not eviction ground in law.

10 years rent agreement . eviction petition dismissed .

JUDGMENT SHEET

LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.38539 of 2023

Maqsood Ahmad Vs. Additional District Judge, etc.

J U D G M E N T

Date of Hearing:

14.05.2024

Petitioner by:

Hafiz Rehman Aziz, Advocate.

Respondent No.3 by: Mr. Salah-ud-Din Siddiqui, Advocate.

Anwaar Hussain, J. Through this single judgment, present as

well as connected constitutional petition bearing W.P. No.69876/2023

are being simultaneously decided, as common question of law and facts

are involved, and both the petitions have laid challenge to the findings

of the Courts below, emanating from the eviction proceedings initiated

by respondent No.3, namely, Riasat Ali, (“respondent”), who is the

petitioner in connected petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tenancy

between the petitioner and the respondent was valid for a period of 10-

years and the eviction was sought on the ground of default and personal

need, however, issue in respect of default only was framed, by the Rent

Tribunal, and despite the fact that the same could not be proved as per

the findings of the Appellate Court below, dated 27.05.2023, the

petitioner has been directed by the Appellate Court below to vacate the

rented premises on the ground that the relationship between the parties

has become strained. Adds that such innovative ground for eviction is

violative of both the tenancy agreement between the parties as well as

the provision of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (“Act”) as the

grounds available for eviction has been stipulated by the legislature in

Section 15 thereof, thus, strained relation as a ground of eviction is

W.P. No.38539 of 2023

alien. Further contends that the respondent was obligated to give

concise statement regarding the period for which the arrears were

claimed in terms of Section 19(3) of the Act that has not been given

and the same is fatal; that the payment of rent from 01.09.2021 to

17.01.2022 is duly acknowledged by the respondent in terms of Exh-R-

1; and that the respondent has taken contradictory positions inasmuch

as in the eviction petition, default in payment of monthly rent for one

year has been alleged without specifying the date of default as also the

exact period thereof, whereas, in his appeal preferred against the

impugned final order of the Rent Tribunal, default from the outset of

the tenancy has been alleged.

Conversely, it is the case of the respondent that the document-

(Exh.R-1) is a private document, having no evidentiary value and has

been wrongly relied upon by the Appellate Court below as an

admission on part of the respondent. Adds that even otherwise, default

for the period of six months w.e.f. April, 2021 to August, 2021 and

February, 2022, which the Rent Tribunal held against the petitioner,

has been upended on the basis of presumption as the petitioner side

failed to establish that the monthly rent for the said period was paid.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

Following questions of law require opinion of this Court:

What is the effect of failure on part of an ejectment

petitioner to give concise statement in terms of

Section 19(3) of the Act regarding the period for

which he claims arrears of rent?

ii.

Whether strained and hostile relationship between

the landlord and the tenant developed, on account

of eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord, is

a valid ground for eviction of the tenant, under the

Act?

The tenancy relationship between the parties as well as the

tenancy period of ten years, commencing from 01.09.2020, is admitted.

It is also admitted feature of the case that the rented premises was a

W.P. No.38539 of 2023

vacant plot on which the petitioner has established a Marquee by

investing and injecting a substantial amount of capital. When the

respondent approached the Rent Tribunal, on 30.03.2022, in para No.3

of the ejectment petition, he stated as under:

درج ذلی ووجاہت یک انبء رپ ومج ب ب دیبلخ ےہ۔ ہیلع وئسمل ہکہی ۔3"

ےن رکاہی بباب ب ت الپٹ ذتمرکہ بباال ای ک اسل ےس ادا ہن ایک ےہ۔ ہیلع وئسمل ہی ہک ۔i

ہیلع وئسمل روےپ واج ب ب االدا ںیہ /12,00,000 - ےک ذہم ہیلع وئسمل ہی ہک ۔ ii

ڈافیرٹل ےک زرمہ ںیم آبتا ےہ۔

یک ر ا یدن ےک ریغ الپٹ ذتمرکہ بباال یس د رگ رکاہی دار و لئ ےن اس ہیلع وئسمل ہی ہک ۔ iii

"۔یئ یک ز اا تم یک و ہ ےس ب اما و لئ دےنی یک وشش یک وج ہک اس

(Emphasis supplied)

The petitioner denied the averments contained in the petition. Leave to

contest was allowed and following issues were framed:

“ISSUES

1. Whether respondent is wilful defaulter in the

payment of rent. If so, at what rate and for

which period? OPP

2. Whether respondent is liable to eviction from

demised premises? OPP

3. Whether the petitioner has got no cause of

action? OPR

4. Order.”

It has been noted that only issue of default was framed to which

the respondent side has not laid any challenge. The respondent

appeared as AW-1, whereas, one Muhammad Mahad and Muhammad

Nawaz appeared as AW-2 and AW-3, respectively, whereas, on behalf

of the petitioner, he himself appeared as RW-1, one Nasir Hayat and

Nadeem Ghaffar appeared as RW-2 and RW-3, respectively. The Rent

Tribunal held that the petitioner has not paid rent from April, 2021 to

August, 2021 and February, 2022 and on this ground allowed the

eviction petition, whereas, when the appeals were preferred by both

sides, the appeal of the respondent was dismissed, whereas, the appeal

W.P. No.38539 of 2023

of the petitioner was partly allowed and findings of the learned Rent

Tribunal determining the arrears of monthly rent from the month of

April 2021 to August, 2021 and February, 2022 were set aside.

Having above referred factual matrix and evidentiary resume of

the case in sight, and before answering the first legal question, it will be

appropriate to reproduce Section 19 of the Act that reads as under:

19. Filing of application.– (1) An application in respect

of a rented premises shall be filed in the Rent Tribunal of

the area or the district.

(2) If an application is filed under sub-section (1), the

Administrative Special Judge (Rent) of the area or the

district may take cognizance of the case or entrust the same

to any other Special Judge (Rent).

(3) An application under sub-section (1) shall contain a

concise statement of facts, the relief claimed and shall

be accompanied by copies of all relevant documents in

possession of the applicant.

(4) If the application is for eviction of a tenant, the

landlord shall submit his affidavit and affidavits of not

more than two witnesses along with the eviction

application.

(Emphasis supplied)

The term “concise statement” has not been defined by the Act,

however, Order VI, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 refers to

the term in the following manner:

“Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a

statement in a concise form of the material facts on

which the party pleading relies for his claim or

defence, as the case may be…”

(Emphasis supplied)

In common legal parlance, concise statement indicates reciting of facts

with precision that forms basis of a claim and/or underlies the accrual

of cause of action. The underlying purpose is to simplify the key issues

in dispute. Therefore, the concise statement must contain enough

details of the dispute to steer the Court’s focus only to the relevant

issues making it easier for it to adjudicate. In relation to the eviction

W.P. No.38539 of 2023

proceedings initiated under the Act, the term concise statement referred

in Section 19(3) of the Act, mandates the ejectment petitioner to give

the details of the allegation against the respondent and if the allegation

of default in payment of monthly rent is made, sufficient details

pertaining to the date from which the default occurred as also the claim

as on the date of filing of the ejectment petition becomes sine qua non

of such eviction petition to succeed. In the present case, it is pertinent

to note that the respondent in his eviction petition has not given any

detail of the period of default of rent, hence, the relevant issue framed

was generic in nature. The shifting pleadings of the respondent in the

present case present a classic case study revealing the wisdom of

legislature as to why it mandated the concise statement of facts to be

spelled out in an application under Section 19 of the Act. Had the

statutory requirement of concise statement been adhered to, not only

the petitioner would have known the averments with exactitude but

there would have been also no space for the respondent to take a

somersault in appeal as to the period of default. As stated earlier, when

the appeal was preferred by the respondent, a ground was taken that the

petitioner has not paid the amount of rent from outset of the tenancy

i.e., 01.09.2020 to 01.09.2021. This stance, prima facie, was taken to

cover the lacuna of the case inasmuch as in the eviction petition no

period was given except for the statement that for one year the rent has

not been paid by the petitioner, which, in the absence of specific date of

default, would imply the year preceding the filing of the petition. The

Appellate Court below rightly appreciated the said aspect of the case,

in the judgment dated 27.05.2023, operative part whereof is reproduced

hereunder:

“13. Interestingly, the Respondent in paragraph No.3 of

his appeal has improved his stance, that Appellant has

not paid the amount of rent for the period starting from

01.09.2020 to 01.09.2021. This stance appeared to be

afterthought as the same is inconsistent with averments

of eviction petition and evidence produced by the

Respondent. Further this stance is contradictory to the

W.P. No.38539 of 2023

admission made by the Respondent in his cross

examination with regard to Acknowledgment receipt

Exh.R1.”

The true mandate of Section 19(3) of the Act is that it is obligatory for

the ejectment petitioner/landlord to narrate all the relevant and

necessary details of his claim (of default in the instant case) by

elaborating the same with precision (in terms of the date of default and

total period of default) and if he fails to do so, he cannot be allowed to

improve upon the same through the evidence. Any such improvement

would be fatal. In case reported as “ABDUL GHANI through L.Rs. vs

Messrs CALTEX OIL PAKISTAN LIMITED” (2010 S C M R 771),

where no period of default in payment of rent was mentioned in the

ejectment petition, and in the evidence, the case had been set up that

the increased annual rent of Rs.299 was not paid by the respondents,

the Supreme Court held that the same is an improvement in the course

of evidence and hence, the ejectment petitioner, in said case, was not

given any credit for the same.

10. Moreover, averment of learned counsel for the respondent that

Exh.R-1 is a private document, having no evidentiary value is

misconceived. No doubt it is a private document (part of a diary) where

factum of receipt of rent has been recorded, however, it contains

signatures of the respondent. On a pointed question by this Court,

learned counsel has acknowledged the signatures of the respondent.

Even otherwise, it belies logic that a person will enter into a tenancy

agreement that is to take effect from 01.09.2020 and the tenant (the

petitioner) will commit default from the outset and the landlord (the

respondent) will not initiate any legal proceedings for a period of about

two years while accepting the amount of rent with effect from

01.09.2021 onwards and thereafter file the eviction petition without

giving concise statement of the facts (qua period of default). This fact

has rightly persuaded the Appellate Court below to partially allow the

appeal of the petitioner, however, the Appellate Court below also

directed the petitioner to vacate the rented premises.

W.P. No.38539 of 2023

11. This takes me to the second legal question formulated

hereinabove. The Appellate Court below erred in directing eviction of

the petitioner on the ground that the relationship between the parties

has become strained and environment of distrust between the parties

has emerged as said reason does not constitute a ground of eviction

contemplated under the Act. Section 15 of the Act is the relevant

provision that reads as under:

15. Grounds for eviction.– A landlord may seek eviction of the

tenant if–

(a) the period of tenancy has expired;

(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;

the tenancy agreement;

(d) the tenant has committed a violation of an obligation under

section 13;

(e) the tenant has used the premises for a purpose which is

different from the purpose for which it has been let out; or

(f) the tenant has sub-let the premises without the prior written

consent of the landlord.

Suffice to observe that the Act aims to consolidate and amend the law

relating to the relationship of landlord and tenant, inter alia, eviction of

the tenant(s). The Act envisaged grounds of eviction in term of Section

15 of the Act, quoted hereinabove and the fact that on account of

litigation between the parties, their relationship have become strained,

is not a valid ground to seek eviction. If such like grounds for eviction

are allowed to be transplanted, this would amount to the Courts

traversing beyond their domain of statutory adherence. In present case,

the Appellate Court below has travelled beyond the legislative wisdom

while passing the impugned judgment.

12. Moreover, it is noted that the rented premises was a vacant plot

at the time of creation of tenancy, which was developed into a Marquee

by the petitioner on the basis of certainty harboured by him that the

tenancy is for a period of 10 years and he would not be evicted

W.P. No.38539 of 2023

therefrom except in situations which warrant his eviction under the

tenancy agreement and/or the Act. The specific insertion of duration of

10 years, as a tenancy period, reveals the intention of the parties that

the tenancy is for fixed period that is long term. Certainly, the purpose

is to ensure that the respondent/landlord would get rent during the said

long term tenancy period and the petitioner/tenant would get return on

his investment. The premature eviction of the petitioner in the absence

of any contractual or statutory violation (default in this case) would not

only engender injustice, being detrimental to the commercial interest of

the petitioner, but would also undermine the public trust in

investment/commercial contracts and their enforcement by the Courts

that cannot be allowed by this Court.

13. In view of the preceding discussion, the present petition is

allowed and direction to the petitioner to vacate the rented premises is

set aside whereas the connected petition bearing W.P. No.69876/2023

is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(ANWAAR HUSSAIN)

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.