2024 MLD 413 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

ABDUL REHMAN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Ss. 2(d), 2(l), 13, 15, 19 & 22---eviction petition---Relationship of landlord and tenant, denial of---Rent dispute---Rent Tribunal, jurisdiction of---Scope---Petitioner (eviction petitioner) on the strength of sale deed and mutation, claimed that previous owner of demised premises, who had rented out the premises to respondent , had sold out the premises to the petitioner---eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent (tenant) was concurrently dismissed on the basis that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties---Contention of the petitioner was that both the Courts below had ignored S. 2(d) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ('the Act, 2009') which recognized that any person having ownership of the premises or part thereof or share in joint khata, where the premises was situated could file ejectment petition---Validity---Combined reading of Ss. 13 & 15 of the Act, 2009 as well as definitions of landlord and tenant as per Ss. 2(d) & 2(l) of the Act, 2009 reflects that remedy of eviction under the Act, 2009 was available only when the landlord of the premises could first establish that one sought to be evicted had a relationship of tenant with such landlord---eviction petition could be maintained upon expiry of tenancy, failure of payment of rent, breach of terms and conditions of tenancy agreement, violation by tenant of obligation under S.13 of the Act, 2009 and unauthorized use of premises or subletting without written consent, while all the grounds given in S.15 of the Act, 2009 required some violation by the tenant---If a person was not a tenant of the ejectment petitioner that meant no ground was available to such person to seek eviction of tenant---Jurisdiction of Rent Tribunals was provided to regulate the relationships of landlords and tenants, to provide a mechanism for settlement of their disputes in an expeditious and cost effective manner and for the matters connected thereto---Said jurisdiction was not available as an alternate to other jurisdictions provided in law or claims of possession through partition or disputed title or for that matter other claims that were required to be resolved by the Civil Courts---No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below---Constitutional petition filed by the eviction petitioner was dismissed, in circumstances.