ہ تحریری معاہدے کی معیاد ختم ہونے کے باوجود، معاہدے کی شرائط اور ذمہ داریاں جاری رہتی ہیں جب تک کہ قانونی طور پر دوسری صورت حال سامنے نہ آئےresponsibility of agreem|
 |
| ہ تحریری معاہدے کی معیاد ختم ہونے کے باوجود، معاہدے کی شرائط اور ذمہ داریاں جاری رہتی ہیں جب تک کہ قانونی طور پر دوسری صورت حال سامنے نہ آئے |
عدالت نے اس کیس میں ایک منفرد نقطہ اٹھایا کہ کرایے کی جاری حیثیت، چاہے تحریری معاہدہ ختم ہو چکا ہو، برقرار رہتی ہے۔ عدالت نے خالد جاوید بمقابلہ محمد عمران کیس کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے واضح کیا کہ اگر کرایہ دار معاہدے کی شرائط کے تحت رہائش پذیر رہے، تو ان شرائط کا اطلاق جاری رہے گا، اور اس کی بنیاد پر ایجمنٹ پٹیشن کے فیصلے میں کوئی تبدیلی نہیں آئے گی۔ یہ نقطہ بنیادی طور پر یہ بتاتا ہے کہ تحریری معاہدے کی معیاد ختم ہونے کے باوجود، معاہدے کی شرائط اور ذمہ داریاں جاری رہتی ہیں جب تک کہ قانونی طور پر دوسری صورت حال سامنے نہ آئے۔
**لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا مختصر جائزہ: W.P. No. 7794 of 2012**
**سماعت کی تاریخ:** 6 اپریل، 2012
**فریقین:**
- **درخواست گزار:** سید بہادر علی شاہ (وکیل: سید سرور حسین شاہ)
- **مدعا علیہ:** مسز انور بیگم
**پس منظر:**
1. **ابتدائی کارروائی:**
- مسز انور بیگم نے 7 مئی 2008 کو سید بہادر علی شاہ کے خلاف شالامار لنک روڈ، لاہور پر واقع دکان کے لیے ایجمنٹ پٹیشن دائر کی۔
- کرائے کے کنٹرولر نے ایجمنٹ کا حکم دیا، بشرطیکہ مسز انور بیگم سالانہ کرایے کا 10% رقم جمع کرائیں۔
- درخواست گزار نے اپیل کی، جس کے بعد کیس کو ضلع جج نے دوبارہ سنا۔ درخواست گزار کی بعد کی writ پٹیشن مسترد کر دی گئی۔
2. **بعد کی ترقیات:**
- خصوصی جج (کرایہ) نے 9 مارچ 2011 کو درخواست گزار کی "لیو ٹو ڈیفینڈ" کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔
- اضافی ضلع جج نے 6 مارچ 2012 کو اس فیصلے کی توثیق کی۔
- درخواست گزار نے ان فیصلوں کو چیلنج کرنے کے لیے writ پٹیشن دائر کی۔
**درخواست گزار کے دلائل:**
- احکام میں کوئی معقولیت نہیں تھی اور کیس کی حقیقت پر توجہ نہیں دی گئی۔
- ایجمنٹ پٹیشن درخواست گزار کی طرف سے دائر کردہ مقدمے کا ردعمل تھی۔
- مدعا علیہ پنجاب کرائے کی جائیداد ایکٹ، 2009 کی دفعات پر عمل نہیں کر رہی تھی۔
- درخواست گزار کا دفاع غلط طور پر مسترد کر دیا گیا۔
**عدالت کا تجزیہ:**
- **کرایے کی جاری حیثیت:** عدالت نے بتایا کہ تحریری معاہدے کی میعاد ختم ہونے کے بعد بھی کرایے کی شرائط جاری رہتی ہیں، جیسا کہ خالد جاوید بمقابلہ محمد عمران کیس میں بیان کیا گیا۔
- **پنجاب کرائے کی جائیداد ایکٹ کے تحت ذمہ داریاں:** عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ مدعا علیہ نے سالانہ کرایے کا 10% جمع کروا کر کسی بھی نقص کو دور کیا۔
- **لیو ٹو ڈیفینڈ کا مسترد ہونا:** عدالت نے کہا کہ کرائے کی عدالت نے درخواست گزار کی درخواست کو مسترد کرتے وقت قانون کے مطابق عمل کیا۔
- **ایجمنٹ پٹیشن کی پائیداری:** عدالت نے فیصلہ کیا کہ دوسری پٹیشن پہلی پٹیشن کی واپسی کے باوجود درست تھی۔
**نتیجہ:**
عدالت نے درخواست گزار کے دلائل میں کوئی merit نہیں پایا۔ نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے برقرار رکھے گئے۔ writ پٹیشن کو بغیر کسی اخراجات کے مسترد کر دیا گیا۔
**جج:** شجاعت علی خان
فیصلے میں یہ واضح کیا گیا کہ ہائی کورٹ کو ایسے مقدمات میں محدود دائرہ اختیار حاصل ہے، جو بنیادی طور پر قانونی غلطیوں پر توجہ دیتا ہے، نہ کہ حقائق کی دوبارہ جانچ پر۔
Stereo.HCJDA 38
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P NO. 7794 OF 2012
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing: 06.04.2012
Appellant by : (SYED BAHADUR ALI SHAH) Syed Sarwar
Hussain Shah Advocate
Respondent : (A.D.J etc) Nemo
Shujaat Ali Khan J. By means of this petition
under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, Syed Bahadur Ali Shah (petitioner)
has called in question the vires of order, dated 9.3.2011,
passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore
whereby the Ejectment Petition, filed by Mst. Anwar Begum
(respondent No.3) was accepted as well as that of order
dated 06.03.2012 by virtue of which the learned Additional
District Judge, Lahore while dismissing the appeal filed by
respondent No.3 upheld the order passed by the learned
Special Judge (Rent), Lahore.
2.
Succinctly, the facts, forming factual background
of this petition, are that respondent No.3 being owner of a
shop bearing Property No.SE-3-R-127 situated at Shalamar
Link Road, Lahore, filed an Ejectment Petition against the
present petitioner on 7.05.2008 which was ac
2
learned Rent Controller, Lahore vide order dated
27.10.2008 subject to the condition that respondent No.3
would deposite 10% of the annual rent in the Government
Treasury within one month. Aggrieved by the said order,
the present petitioner filed an appeal before learned District
Judge, Lahore. The said appeal came up for final hearing
before the learned Additional District Judge on 27.10.2008
when the appeal filed by the present petitioner was
accepted and the case was remanded back to the learned
Rent Controller, Lahore for decision afresh. Being
dissatisfied with the said order too, the present petitioner
filed Writ Petition (bearing No.6817/2010) before this court
which was dismissed by Mr. Justice Sheikh Ahmad Farooq
(as he then was) vide order dated 16.6.2010. During post
remand proceedings, the present petitioner filed Petition for
Leave to Contest before the learned Special Judge (Rent),
Lahore which was dismissed vide order dated 09.03.2011
against which the present petitioner preferred an appeal
before the learned District Judge, Lahore which too was
dismissed by the learned Additional District vide order
dated 06.03.2012; hence this petition.
3.
The present petition came up for preliminary hearing
before this court on 30th March, 2012 when notice was
issued to respondent No.3 for 04.04.2012. Though, as per
office record, notice was issued to respondent No.3 for the
3
said date, neither respondent No.3 nor any of his
representative entered appearance on 04.04.2012. On
04.04.2012 the hearing of this petition was postponed for
today due to non-availability of learned counsel for the
petitioner. Even today respondent No.3 is un-represented
inasmuch as neither he nor anybody else has entered
appearance on his behalf. Consequently, respondent No.3
is proceeded against ex-parte as this petition cannot be
kept pending for an indefinite period awaiting presence of
respondent No.3 as the said approach runs contrary to the
spirit of National Judicial Policy enunciated by the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of Pakistan.
4.
The arguments put forth by the learned counsel for
the petitioner at the bar can be summed up in the words
that the orders passed by both the courts below are bereft
of any reasoning; that while passing the impugned orders
the lower forums have not attended to the merits of the
case as the petitioner was knocked out on the basis of
technicalities inasmuch as his Petition for Leave to Contest
was dismissed and he was not allowed to contest the
petition filed by respondent No.3 due to sheer mala fides on
her part; that the learned courts below having not attended
to an important aspect of the case that deposit of 10% of
the annual rent did not mean to oblige the learned Special
Judge (Rent), Lahore to dismiss the Petition for Leave to
4
Contest filed by the petitioner; that both courts have not
appreciated that earlier respondent No.3 filed an Ejectment
Petition under Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959
whereas after withdrawing the same she filed a petition for
the self-same relief under the Punjab Rented Premises Act,
2009; that both the forums below have not taken into
consideration that respondent No.3 miserably failed to
comply with the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the
Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009; that in absence of any
written Tenancy Agreement the learned Special Judge
(Rent), Lahore was not obliged to entertain Ejectment
Petition; that the learned courts below failed to appreciate
that the Ejectment Petition was filed by respondent No.3 as
counterblast to the suit filed by the petitioner for
permanent injunction and that both the courts below have
passed orders in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court
Judgment rendered in an unreported case titled “Allah
Ditta Sajid vs. Muhammad Saleem Qureshi & others
(Civil Petition No.349-L/2010).
5.
I have given ardent hearing to the learned counsel for
the petitioner and have also gone through the documents
appended with this petition, in particular the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. During the said exercise I have
noted that tenancy between the petitioner and respondent
5
No.3 regarding the shop in dispute is admitted as under
Preliminary Objection No.3 in the first application for Leave
to Defend, the petitioner averred that the landlord
(respondent No.3) did receive the rent up to the month of
May 2008 and subsequent thereof, the tenant had been
depositing monthly rent in the Government Treasury.
Further, the said question stood determined by this Court
in the earlier round of litigation while dealing with Writ
Petition.6817/2009. Now the question left for
determination by this court is that if the parties continue
with the tenancy despite expiry of the Tenancy Agreement
what would be the effect of such Tenancy. In this regard, a
reference can safely be made to a case reported as Khalid
Javed v. Muhammad Imran (2004 MLD 577) wherein
while dealing with somewhat similar question, it was inter
alia held as under:-
“*****Under law when a tenant enters into a rented
premises under some written agreement, after lapse of
period mentioned therein, terms and conditions settled
between the parties through written agreement,
continue to govern the terms and conditions of the
tenancy and it by no stretch of imagination becomes
oral tenancy.....”.
In view of the law laid down in the afore-quoted case, it is
crystal clear that as the petitioner continued in the rented
premises as tenant, he was bound by the terms and
conditions of the earlier agreement executed between
6
parties and the petitioner cannot seek any escape from the
said tenancy.
Now adverting to the petitioner’s contention that the
Ejectment Petition was filed as a counterblast to the suit
filed by the present petitioner, I am of the view that
according to section 10 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act,
2009, an agreement to sell or any other agreement entered
into between the landlord and the tenant, after the
execution of a tenancy agreement, in respect of premises
and for a matter other than a matter provided under the
tenancy agreement, shall not affect the relationship of land
and tenant unless the tenancy is revoked through a written
agreement entered before the Rent Registrar in accordance
with the provisions of section 5. Since, execution of a
Tenancy Agreement between the present petitioner and
respondent No.3 is not denied, therefore, filing of a suit by
the petitioner is of no help to him rather their status would
be governed by the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.
Insofar as the petitioner’s plea that as the Tenancy
Agreement was not in conformity with the Punjab Rented
Premises Act, 2009, the Ejectment Petition could not be
entertained by the learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore,
suffice it to observe that as per section 9 of the Punjab
Rented Premises Act, 2009, if the landlord deposits 10% of
the annual rent, then any defect in his tenancy would
7
stand cured. In the case in hand, respondent No.3 has
already deposited the amount of fine, therefore, the
objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
hereby spurned.
Now while dealing with the petitioner’s assertion that
after remand of case, the learned Special Judge (Rent) was
not obliged to straightway dismiss the Petition for Leave to
Defend filed by the petitioner rather he should have decide
the case on merits, I am of the humble opinion that in view
of section 22(4) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 a
Rent Tribunal is not supposed to decide an application for
Leave to Defend in a casual manner rather the Tribunal is
duty bound to see as to whether the application discloses
sufficient grounds for production of oral evidence or not.
Further, in the case reported as Pakistan Bail-ul-Mal v.
Umar Mahmood Kasuri and another (2008 C.L.R 910) it
has inter alia been held that—
“11. As is clear from the above language, it is not in
fact a discretion of the learned Rent Controller. The law
says if the tenant “makes default his defence shall be
struck off and landlord put in the possession of the
property without taking any further proceedings in the
case.” It is therefore, not an option for the learned Rent
Controller. In the presence of this language, since there
was no option, the order dated 30.4.2005 even
otherwise was not enforceable. This a party of the
continuation of the same proceedings. The learned Rent
8
Controller directed for production of the evidence which
was subject to payment of determined amount of rent.
On non-fulfilment of the obligation in terms of default
and non-payment, he was legally bound to strike off
the defence and was thus obviously obliged to do what
he did.”
A survey of the above quoted paragraph of the reported
case, it is evident that it is obligatory on the Rent Tribunal
to see as to whether requisite grounds for grant of Leave to
Defend are available or not. Insofar as the case in hand is
concerned, a perusal of the order passed by the learned
Special Judge (Rent), Lahore brings it to light that while
dismissing the application of the petitioner for Leave to
Defend the learned Rent Tribunal given plausible reasons.
Thus, the said order is not amenable to interference by this
court and that too in exercise of its constitutional
jurisdiction.
As far as the petitioner’s objection regarding
maintainability of Ejectment Petition under the Punjab
Rented Premises Act, 2009 after withdrawal of earlier
Ejectment Petition filed by respondent No.3 is concerned, I
am of the considered view that by virtue of sections 35 &
36 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 a saving
clause has been introduced for the matters already pending
under Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and
the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2007. Even
9
otherwise the cause of action on the basis whereof
respondent No.3 filed Ejectment Petition was subsisting at
the relevant time and petitioner has no cheeks to urge that
the said petition was not maintainable.
Now coming to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court supra I am of the humble view that the same is not
applicable to the case in hand due to peculiarity of the facts
and circumstances involved in the said matter inasmuch in
the said case the landlord despite direction by the Rent
Tribunal did not deposit the amount of fine. Further, in the
said case, the order regarding deposit of 10% of the annual
rent by the landlord was not challenged by the tenant
whereas in the case in hand the petitioner himself
challenged the order of remand by the learned Additional
District Judge, Lahore before this court by way of filing of
Writ Petition No.6817/2010 which was dismissed vide
order dated 16.6.2010 and order of dismissal of the said
petition having not been challenged before any higher
forum has attained finality. Thus, it does not lie in the
mouth of the petitioner to agitate at this juncture that the
Ejectment Petition was not maintainable before the Special
Judge (Rent), Lahore.
Even otherwise this court rarely exercises its
constitutional jurisdiction to upset the findings of facts
recorded by to forums below rather this court can exercise
10
such discretion in the cases wherein the orders impugned
apparently are erroneous. If any case-law is required on
this point, a reference can safely be made to a very
illuminated judgment of the Hon’ble Suprme Court
reported as Shajar Islam vs. Muhammad Siddique & 2
others (PLD 2007 S.C. 45) wherein their lordships the
Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court has laid down the
law to the following effect:-
“*****The learned counsel for the respondent has not
been able to point out any legal or factual infirmity in
the concurrent finding on the above question of fact to
justify the interference of the High Court in the writ
jurisdiction and this is settled law that the High Court
in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is not
supposed to interfere in the findings on the
controversial question of facts based on evidence even
if such finding is erroneous. The scope of the judicial
review of the High Court under Article 199 of the
Constitution in such cases, is limited to the extent of
misreading or non-reading of evidence for if the finding
is based on no evidence which may cause miscarriage
of justice but it is not proper for the High Court to
disturb the finding of fact through reappraisal of
evidence in writ jurisdiction or exercise this jurisdiction
as a substitute of revision or appeal.”
5.
In sequel to above discussion, we are of the
considered view that the interference of the High Court
in the concurrent finding of the two Courts regarding
the existence of relationship of land and tenant
between the parties was beyond the scope of its
11
jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution and
consequently, we convert this petition into an appeal,
set aside the judgment of the High Court and allow the
appeal with no order as to costs.”
A perusal of the afore-quoted portion of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that this
court has very narrow scope to interfere in the orders
passed by the lower forums.
Considering from another angle, respondent No.3,
who belongs to weaker gender, has been going from pillar
to post for redressal of his grievance since the year 2008
but till date neither her possession has been restored to her
nor any rent has been paid by the petitioner to her.
To sum up, I am of the opinion that learned counsel
for the petitioner has miserably failed to point out any
illegality or perversity in the impugned orders justifying
interference by this court in exercise of its constitutional
jurisdiction. Consequently, I see no merits in this petition,
which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judge
Approved for Reporting.
Comments
Post a Comment