2024 CLC 1712 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

MAQSOOD AHMAD VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD Ss.15 & 19(3)---eviction of Tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent---Improvement in evidence qua period of default---Effect---Failure of the landlord to give concise statement under S.19(3) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ('Act, 2009') qua period of default---Effect---eviction order on the basis of alien/innovative ground of strained and hostile relationship between the landlord and tenant owing to eviction proceedings---Legality---Contention of the petitioner was that rented premises was a vacant plot, which was developed into a marquee with certainty that tenancy would exist for the fixed period of 10 years and he would not be evicted except in accordance with tenancy agreement or the Act, 2009---Validity---Mandate of S.19(3) of the Act, 2009 was that it was obligatory for the landlord to narrate all the relevant and necessary details of default by elaborating the same with precision (in terms of the date of default and total period of default) and if he failed to do so, he could not be allowed to improve upon the same through the evidence---Section 15 of the Act, 2009 envisaged grounds of eviction and the fact that on account of litigation between the parties, relationship of landlord and tenant had become strained, was not a valid ground to seek eviction and if such like grounds for eviction were allowed to be transplanted that would amount to the Courts traversing beyond their domain of statutory adherence, hence, Appellate Court had travelled beyond the legislative wisdom while passing the eviction order---Specific insertion of duration of 10 years, as a tenancy period, revealed the intention of the parties that the tenancy was for fixed period, that is long term, with certainty that landlord would get rent during the said long term tenancy period and the tenant would get return on his investment, therefore, the premature eviction of the tenant in the absence of any contractual or statutory violation (default) would not only engender injustice, being detrimental to the commercial interest of the petitioner, but would also undermine the public trust in investment/commercial contracts and their enforcement by the Courts which could not be allowed---Constitutional petition of the tenant was allowed and that of the landlord was dismissed accordingly.