2023 CLC 207 ISLAMABAD

Full text

Miss MEMOONA ZAINAB KAZMI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (MCAC) ISLAMABAD WEST, ISLAMABAD Ss.16A & 17---Mediation Council, procedure of---"Good will"---Scope---Automatic increase of rent---Scope---Respondent/landlord filed eviction application alleging that lease agreement had expired; that petitioner/tenant had defaulted in payment of rent on due dates; that he handed over post-dated cheques against the rent which were dishonored due to insufficient balance---Eviction petition was allowed on ground of expiry of lease, whereas the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by appellate Court on ground of default in payment of tentative rent---Petitioner contended that the first Appellate Court had not considered the rate of monthly rent though the complete rent had already been deposited; that every case had to be referred to the Mediation Council for settlement of the dispute amongst the landlord and tenant and that eviction order was passed without adverting to the said procedure which was illegal/liable to be set aside---Held, that the lease period was already expired which fact had not been denied by the petitioner before High Court---Term "goodwill" was quite alien in case of lease agreement of a residential building where tenant was neither businessman nor the building was commercial specified for running some business---Section 10 of the Ordinance, 2001, provided an automatic increase at the end of every one year of tenancy by 10% of the rent---Petitioner was obliged to deposit the rent with enhanced rate notwithstanding passing of any order by the Rent Controller or on the claim of the landlord---Petitioner was deemed to be a defaulter due to the fact that he failed to pay the amount of rent automatically enhanced after the lapse of one year of tenancy agreement within stipulated period---Record showed that an FIR under S.489-F, Penal Code, 1860 had been lodged against the petitioner by the landlord for dishonestly issuing cheque on account of the rent, in which case the compromise took place between the parties and the petitioner had paid a sum---Said aspect would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner tenant was in default on different occasions and such aspect had not been denied by the petitioner---Recording of evidence was not requirement of law when admitted facts in the inquiry clarified the grounds of eviction under S.17 of the Ordinance, 2001---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.