Citation Name: 2024 PLD 608 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case WAHEED YOUNAS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JU

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 608 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case WAHEED YOUNAS VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA Ss. 2(a), 2(f) & 19---Eviction of tenant---Rented premises claimed to be "any place of religious worship"---Scope---Rent Tribunal, jurisdiction of---Scope---Ejectment-petitioner (Masjid) sought eviction of the tenant from its (Masjid's) shops---Tenant filed present constitutional petition against eviction orders concurrently passed against him---Held, that petitioner, while relying upon Ss. 2(a) & 2(f) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, contended that the Rent Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matters pertaining to "any place of religious worship"---Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, provides that application in respect of rented premises shall be filed in the Rent Tribunal for the settlement of the disputes in an expeditious manner; the "premises" as mentioned in S. 2(f) of the Act 2009 includes "building", while defining the word "building" S. 2(a) of the Act, 2009, excludes room in a hotel, hostel, boarding house, guest house or any place of religious worship---However the words 'any place of religious worship' by no means can be stretched to a premises or building that is being used for a commercial purpose---Admittedly, the premises-in-question are shops, being used for commercial purpose---Said provisions of the Act, 2009 cumulatively reveal that any property, space or premises let out for the purpose of business or trade are not intended to be excluded from the definition of building or for that matter premises---Thus, the objection of the petitioner as to maintainability of the ejectment-petition, was rejected---No illegality, infirmity or mistake had been made by both the Courts below while passing eviction order---Constitutional petition, filed by tenants, was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 608 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case WAHEED YOUNAS VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA Ss. 2(a), 2(f) & 19---Eviction of tenant---Relationship of tenant and landlord, denial of---Dispute qua ownership of rented premises---Ejectment-petitioner (Masjid) sought eviction of the tenant from its (Masjid's) shops---Plea of the tenant was that he was not under tenancy of the ejectment-petitioner, instead (he was tenant) of Evacuee Trust Property Board ('Evacuee Board') to whom rented-premises belonged---Tenant filed present constitutional petition against eviction orders concurrently passed against him---Held, that record revealed that the petitioner/tenant, while making reference to a document having been exhibited as evidence, claimed that he was a tenant of respondent (Evacuee Board)---Said document was prepared after the filing of ejectment-petition---Petitioner, in his evidence, had even denied having any knowledge as to the amount paid to respondent (Evacuee Board) at the time of alleged execution of the said document---Petitioner also admitted that a real uncle of the petitioner was president of the mosque committee but then again denied, for want of knowledge, that the said uncle/president gave the premises to the predecessor of the petitioner, on rent---Reading of evidence had left no doubt that the predecessor of the petitioner entered into (exhibited) rent agreement with the ejectment-petitioner---Petitioner asserted that instead of ejectment-petitioner, respondent (Evacuee Board) was the actual owner, however, in said respect previous judgment passed in previous constitution petition had already been decided, which was contested by respondent (Evacuee Board) as well ; and, after hearing the parties, High Court reached to the conclusion that factual controversy was involved vis-à-vis the ownership dispute which could not be resolved without recording of evidence---Said order (passed in constitutional petition), admittedly, was never assailed and instead a reference had been filed by respondent (Evacuee Board), with respect to several shops including the premises before the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board which was pending adjudication---Record even revealed that the petitioner filed a suit before institution of present eviction proceedings claiming himself to be the owner of the premises---Thus, the petitioner could not be allowed to adopt two different versions in two different cases, which was hit by principle of approbate and reprobate; in one case he had pleaded himself to be the owner of the premises and in the ejectment-petition he had taken the defence quite contrary to the earlier---Dispute of ownership, between ejectment-petitioner (Masjid) and respondent (Evacuee Board) was to be determined by the forum having authority to record evidence---Undoubtedly, the ejectment-petitioner (Masjid) for the time being was receiving rent with respect to the premises (shops)---No benefit could be given to petitioner/tenant for the dispute of ejectment-petitioner and respondent (Evacuee Board)---No illegality, infirmity or mistake had been made by both the Courts below while passing eviction order---Constitutional petition, filed by tenants, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 608 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case WAHEED YOUNAS vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA Ss — 2024 PLD 608 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD