Unwritten Rent agreement can be end on one month notice

Unwritten Rent agreement can be end on one month notice (PLJ 2022 Lahore 85)

یہ مقدمہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے (PLJ 2022 Lahore 85) پر مبنی ہے جو ایک کرایہ داری کے تنازع اور کرایہ دار کی برخاستگی سے متعلق ہے۔ مقدمے کا خلاصہ درج ذیل ہے:

**پس منظر:**

- درخواست گزار، عارف محمود، نے جواب دہندگان نمبر 3 سے 7 کے خلاف ejectment کی درخواست کو چیلنج کیا، جنہوں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ اس دکان کے مالک ہیں جسے درخواست گزار نے کرایہ پر لیا تھا۔

- کرایہ ایک معاہدہ کے تحت 22.2.2017 کو 11 ماہ کی مدت کے لئے طے ہوا تھا، جس میں ماہانہ کرایہ 6500 روپے تھا۔ معاہدے کی مدت ختم ہو گئی تھی اور اسے توسیع نہیں دی گئی، جس کی وجہ سے کرایہ کی ادائیگی میں ڈیفالٹ ہوا۔

- درخواست گزار نے دعویٰ کیا کہ وہ گزشتہ 40 سال سے جواب دہندگان کے والد کے ساتھ زبانی معاہدے کے تحت کرایہ دار ہے اور معاہدے کی صداقت کو مسترد کیا۔

**عدالت کے نتائج:**

1. **کرایہ داری معاہدے کی قانونی حیثیت:**

- درخواست گزار کا 40 سالہ زبانی معاہدے کا دعویٰ کسی تحریری ریکارڈ سے ثابت نہیں ہو سکا۔ تحریری معاہدے کی عدم موجودگی میں، کرایہ داری ماہ بہ ماہ کی بنیاد پر سمجھی گئی اور 30 دن کے نوٹس پر ختم کی جا سکتی ہے۔

2. **کرایہ کی عدم ادائیگی:**

- ثبوت سے یہ بات ثابت ہوئی کہ کرایہ واجب الادا تھا اور ادائیگی نہیں کی گئی۔ درخواست گزار کا یہ دعویٰ کہ جواب دہندگان نے کرایہ وصول کرنے سے انکار کیا، عدم ادائیگی کی حقیقت کو تبدیل نہیں کرتا۔

3. **اضافی ادائیگیوں کے دعوے:**

- پگری (ایک بار کی ادائیگی)، مرمت کے اخراجات، اور ٹیکس کی ادائیگی کے دعوے کوئی آزاد شواہد سے ثابت نہیں ہوئے اور معاہدے کی دستاویز سے متصادم تھے۔

4. **قانونی نظیریں:**

- عدالت نے سابقہ مقدمات پر انحصار کیا اور تصدیق کی کہ تحریری معاہدے کے بغیر کرایہ داری ماہ بہ ماہ ہوتی ہے اور 30 دن کے نوٹس پر ختم کی جا سکتی ہے۔ معاہدہ کی مدت کے ختم ہونے کے بعد، اگر معاہدہ کو رجسٹر نہیں کیا گیا، تو وہ بھی ماہ بہ ماہ کی بنیاد پر تبدیل ہو جاتا ہے۔

**نتیجہ:**

- لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا، جو نکاسی کی درخواست کے حق میں تھا۔ عدالت نے فیصلوں میں کوئی قانونی غلطی نہیں پائی اور درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔

یہ مقدمہ کرایہ داری کے معاملات میں تحریری معاہدے کی اہمیت اور معاہدے کی مدت ختم ہونے کے بعد کرایہ داری کی قانونی حیثیت کو اجاگر کرتا ہے۔

PLJ 2022 Lahore 85

Present: ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J.

ARIF MEHMOOD--Petitioner

versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE etc.--Respondents

W.P. No. 64646 of 2020, decided on 16.9.2021.

Punjab Rent Premises Act, 2009 (VII of 2009)--

----S. 13--Ejectment petition--Rent deed--Default in payment of rent--No further extension--

Challenge to--Claim of petitioner is that he is not tenant through lease agreement but through

oral lease agreement with respondents father since last fourty years ago--Plea of petitioner is

not supported by any record--In absence of written agreement as to period, tenancy would be

on month to month basis and terminable on 30 days notice--Claim of pagri, amount against

renovation and payment of tax is also not substantiate through any independent evidence--

Petitioner's own claim that rent was not received by respondents also prove fact that rent was

due and petitioner defaulted in payment of rent as claimed in ejectment petition--Petition

dismissed. [Pp. 86 & 87] A, B, C & D

2015 CLC 1187, 2016 MLD 1095, PLJ 2012 Lah. 3 ref. 2019 MLD 792.

Mrs. Naila Mushtaq Ahmed Dhoon, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 16.9.2021.

ORDER

This constitutional petition is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 01.2.2020

and 11.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (Rent) and learned Appellate Court,

respectively.

2. Relevant facts are that Respondents No. 3 to 7 filed ejectment petition against the

petitioner claiming that they are owner of shop No. 3 situated at Aftab Building at Railway Road

near street Rex Cinema Sialkot (shop), which was taken on rent by the petitioner through rent

deed dated 22.2.2017 for period of 11 months at the rate of Rs. 6500/- per month. However, not

only the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent but lease period was also not further extended.

The petitioner filed application for leave to defend which was however dismissed and ejectment

order was passed on 01.2.2020, which order was upheld by learned Appellate Court on

11.11.2020, hence this constitutional petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rent deed dated 22.2.2017 is a fictitious

document and petitioner is tenant of the shop from father of the respondents (namely Allah Lok)

for the last 40 years through oral agreement. Further submits that the petitioner never defaulted

in the payment of monthly rent rather it was the respondents who refused to receive the rent,

hence impugned judgments are not sustainable.

4. Arguments heard. It is not disputed by the petitioner that he is tenant of the shop in

question. However, the claim of the petitioner is that he is not tenant through lease agreement

dated 22.2.2017 but through oral lease agreement with the respondents father since last fourty

years ago. The above plea of the petitioner is not supported by any record. On the other hand, the

respondent placed on record tenancy agreement dated 22.2.2017 for period of 11 months

commencing from 01.1.2017 to 31.8.2018 which was not furtherextended. On the expiry of

aforesaid lease period, tenancy was month to month basis and terminable on 30 days notice.

Reliance in this regard is placed on Muhammad Taufeeq vs. Muhammad Nawaz etc (2015 CLC

1187), Muhammad Nayab vs. Additional District Judge etc. (2016 MLD 1095) and Waqar Zafar

etc. vs. Haji Mazhar Hussain etc (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 81).

5. Regarding claim of the petitioner that he is tenant of respondent father through oral

lease for last 40 years, suffice it to the observe that it is settled law that in absence of written

agreement as to the period, the tenancy would be on month to month basis and terminable on 30

days notice. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Taufeeq vs. Muhammad Nawaz etc (2015 CLC

1187), Muhammad Nayab vs. Additional District Judge etc. (2016 MLD 1095) and Aftab Ahmad

Raja vs. Malik Faizullah Khan etc (PLJ 2012 Lahore 3). Further lease which is beyond period of

11 months, if not registered shall have no legal value and after 11 months, the said tenancy shall

also be treated on month to month basis. Reliance is placed on M.K. Muhammad etc vs.

Muhammad Abu Bakar (1993 SCMR 200), Habib Bank Limited vs. Dr. Munawar Ali

Siddiqui (1991 SCMR 1185) and Messrs Iris Communication Pvt. Ltd vs. Ahmad Khalid (2019

MLD 772).

6. The claim of pagri, amount against renovation and payment of tax is also not

substantiate through any independent evidence rather same is negated by lease deed dated

22.2.2017. The petitioners own claim that rent was not received by the respondents also prove

the fact that rent was due and petitioner defaulted in payment of rent as claimed in the ejectment

petition.

7. In view of above discussion, no illegality is found in the impugned judgments,

therefore, this petition is dismissed in limine.

(Y.A.) Petition dismissed

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.