2018 CLCN 27 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

Mst. RUBINA alias RUBI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE PLD 2011 SC 512, PLD 2016 Lah. 123, PLD 2016 Lahore 123, Ss. 15, 19, 21 & 23---eviction petition---Tenant denied relationship of landlord and tenant and claimed possession of subject property on the basis of agreement to sell---Non-submission of affidavits while filing eviction petition---Effect---Pendency of suit for specific performance--- Ascertainment of entitlement by Rent Controller---Scope---Petitioners/tenants contended that they were occupants under agreement to sell regarding subject property and that respondent was not the owner of the property---Respondent/landlord contended that leave to contest of tenant was rightly rejected by Rent Controller as no defence was disclosed in the application---Validity---Case of the landlord was that he was abroad in connection with his job and his brother used to look after the affairs of rented premises who had rented out the premises to predecessor of the tenants initially for the period of two years---Said predecessor left the country and the petitioners, being his wife and children, kept occupying the rented premises without payment of rent for five years prior to the filing of eviction petition---Application for leave to contest filed by the petitioners/tenants did not disclose the stance which they had taken before the courts below---Stance taken by the tenants was that the ownership of the rented premises was to be determined by the civil court and Rent Controller could not decline the leave to contest on the ground that the petitioners had failed to substantiate their lawful status---Petitioner, could not take such plea at such belated stage as the impugned orders were passed atleast one year before the civil suit was instituted by the petitioners, such an attempt of tenants seemed to be an attempt to cover up the illegal occupation on the rented premises---High Court observed that though the Rent Controller could enter into controversy of ascertaining the title of the parties with reference to the relationship of landlord and tenant after recording the evidence of the parties, however, in certain cases it was beyond the competence of the Rent Controller to give some conclusive findings regarding the title and ownership of the rented premises, particularly when some litigation in that regard was already pending before filing of the ejectment petition---Admitted fact of the present case was that suit for specific performance was filed by the petitioners after the lapse of one year after the decree was passed by Rent Controller, therefore, pendency of such suit was entirely irrelevant; secondly, petitioner had failed to justify and substantiate their capacity to be in possession of the rented premises---Purpose and object of promulgation of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 was to discourage and ward-off unscrupulous and irrational defenses on the part of tenant---As far as the non-compliance of S. 19(4) regarding non-submission of affidavits by landlord was concerned, provision was directory and procedural in nature---High Court declined interference in impugned orders of the two courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.