2024 C L C 230
[Lahore]
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
NASIRA BIBI----Petitioner
Versus
SPECIAL JUDGE RENT, LAHORE and another----Respondents
Writ Petition No.80035 of 2022, decided on 5th July, 2023.
Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)---
----Ss. 15, 19, 22, 25, 27 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.164---Eviction petition---Documents relied upon by an ejectment petitioner to be appended with the ejectment petition---Non-compliance---Inadvertent defect---Scope---Principles of fairness and equity---Production of evidence having been made available because of modern device---Landlord, after having closed his oral evidence, filed an application for producing further oral evidence and certain additional documents including a DVD allegedly containing voice recording of telephonic conversation between the respondent and the petitioner as well as her husband promising to pay rent ('the voice recording')---Rent Tribunal partially allowed the application---Petitioner (lady/tenant) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to impugn said order to the extent of permission to produce the voice recording---Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that impugned order was passed without any sufficient cause in violation of S.19(3) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ('the Act, 2009')---Contention of the respondent/landlord was that S.19(3) or 22(3) were not mandatory provisions of law; while S.34 of the Act 2009 did not oust the principles of fairness and equity to completely preclude the ejectment petitioners from producing documents, which are not appended with the ejectment petition---Validity---Mandatory enactments required strict compliance; an act or thing in non-adherence of the mandatory enactments was invalid--A provision of law which was determined as directory, its substantial compliance was obligatory---When needed, in the interest of justice minor deviations from directory laws could be overlooked provided that there was substantial compliance---It was duty of the Courts to attend to the scheme of Act, 2009 and then to carefully examine the concerned provisions to reach the intent of legislature and to give effect to the same---Provisions of Ss. 19, 22, 25 and 27 of the Act 2009, and keeping in view the object as well as the scheme of the Act, lead to irresistible conclusion that the Legislature has intended that in order to resolve dispute of landlords and tenants in quick, expeditious and cost-effective manner the litigants should provide copies of all documents in their possession that they want to rely upon, at initial stage, by appending them with ejectment petition or leave petition, as the case may be---Time period is provided for almost every step of the proceedings and it was expected from Rent Tribunals to dispose of such cases as expeditiously as possible---Any inadvertent defect in said provisions (Ss. 19, 22, 25 & 27) could be cured exceptionally, when explanation was available to the satisfaction of the Rent Tribunals, which could give permission in compelling needs to safeguard the interest of justice that too after recording reasons for grant of such permission---Litigant to proceeding under the Act, 2009 was not allowed to adduce evidence in non-adherence of said provisions, as a right or matter of course or in routine---Admittedly, entire oral evidence from the respondent's side had been completed and dismissal for request to produce additional oral evidence had attained finality---Aspect as to how the voice recording would have been produced also remained ambiguous---Reason that prevailed with the Rent Tribunal to give permission to produce voice recording was reliance upon Art. 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Whereas in the application moved by the respondent/landlord ground vis-à-vis production of the voice recording set-up in relevant para, did not disclose the date of such recording; and there was no reason given in the application regarding failure to provide the voice recording at initial stage as well as non-compliance of law---Apparently, it also escaped view of the Rent Tribunal that before adverting to the question of admissibility, it was essential to state reasons for departure from the provisions of law or failure in substantial compliance---Respondent had to satisfy the Rent Tribunal as to those grounds on the basis of which he remained unable to produce that evidence or give notice in said regard at the previous stages of trial, which started almost three years ago---It was also incumbent to satisfy the Rent Tribunal as to how it was in interest of equity and fairness to permit the petitioner to produce the particular document at the belated stage---High Court observed that the application filed after about three years of ejectment petition for producing the voice recording lacked sufficient grounds to permit the same---High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Rent Tribunal, to the extent of permission to produce the voice recording---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
The State through Regional Director ANF v. Imam Bakhsh and others 2018 SCMR 2039; Mafizullah v. Manai Ullah and others PLD 1963 Dacca 318; S.N. Nagaraja Rao v. Chikkachennappa and others 1981 (1) Kar LJ 201; Shri Harish. Chandra Mishra and others v. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmed, Opposite Party AIR 1986 PATNA 65 and Khalil-ur-Rehman and another v. Dr. Manzoor Ahmed and others PLD 2011 SC 512 ref.
Muhammad Iqbal Ghani for Petitioner.
Atiq-ur-Rehman Mughal for Respondent No.2.
Comments
Post a Comment