SHABANA PARVEEN vs Malik MOHSIN HASSAN RASHEED Ss — 2025 CLC 1852 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

SHABANA PARVEEN VS Malik MOHSIN HASSAN RASHEED Ss.2(l), 22(3) & 24---Proceedings before the Rent Controller---application for production of an extra witness---Ceiling regarding number of witnesses to be produced in rent proceedings---Scope---Whether such provision was directory or mandatory---Principle---Depositing of rent in court pending proceedings---Exceptions---Facts in brevity were that the dispute arose during rent proceedings where respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (alleged tenant/who denied relationship of landlord and tenant) moved an application for the production of a witness---Petitioner (landlady) filed an application seeking directions for the respondents to deposit rent in the court---Former application was allowed and latter application was dismissed---In appeal the decision of the Trial Court was upheld against which present Constitutional petition was filed---The two pivotal questions for determination before the High Court were as to (i) Whether provision of S. 22(3) of the act is directory or mandatory in nature? and (ii) Whether order for deposit of rent in Court can be passed by the Special Judge (Rent)/Rent Tribunal when relationship of landlord and tenant is yet to be determined?---Held: a bare perusal of the interpretation of a mandatory and directory provision would make it crystal clear that S. 22(3) of the act, 2009 was "directory" in nature, however, courts were required to make all endeavors to follow the directory persuasions but not at the cost of justice---although in S. 22(3) of the act, 2009, the words "affidavits of not more than two witnesses" have been mentioned but these words were directory in nature and court could exercise its jurisdiction keeping in view the facts of the case and could allow more witnesses to appear in the witness box and depose---The purpose of the act, 2009 was to regulate the relationship between landlords and tenants and to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner---The rationale behind mentioning of number of witnesses was actually to curtail the time spent in rent matters and expeditious disposal thereof---Trial Court being at the helm of affairs closely monitored and controlled the speed of trial and could exercise its discretion but in accordance with legal principles while applying judicious mind---If production of witness was permitted, even then it would not have prejudiced the case of either party as the petitioner would have the right to cross-examine the said witness and in this way, permission to produce the said witness would not have prejudiced the rights of the petitioner (landlady)---as regards deposit of rent in court, it was noted that when relationship of landlord and tenant had been denied by tenant, he could not be burdened with deposit of rent, especially in the present case when respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (alleged tenants) had already vacated the premises---Where relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the tenants, they could not be compelled to deposit the rent till the relationship was established---No jurisdictional defect, illegality, legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned order and judgment could be pointed out---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

SHABANA PARVEEN vs Malik MOHSIN HASSAN RASHEED Ss — 2025 CLC 1852 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC