2017 CLC 1278 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

Shaikh NAVEED IKHLAS VS Shaikh ABDUL HAFEEZ 1986 CLC 576, 1986 MLD 722, 2005 YLR 2464, 2009 SCMR 1396, 2013 YLR 344, PLD 1969 Kar. 474, PLD 1974 SC 61, PLD 2015 SC 380, Eviction petition--Term , Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009--10 , Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009--15 , Registration Act 1908--17 , Transfer of Property Act 1882--117 , Transfer of Property Act 1882--49 , Ss. 10 & 15---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss.49 & 117--- Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.17---eviction petition---Wilful default of monthly rent by tenant---Denial of tenancy by the occupant who claimed possession through lease in perpetuity---Authenticity of unregistered lease in perpetuity---Scope---Tenants contended that eviction petition was not maintainable as they were enjoying possession through lease in perpetuity; that they were not given opportunity to be heard properly by the appellate court and that S.10 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 was only applicable when tenancy agreement was already in existence between the parties---Landlord contended that appellate court had rightly ordered the ejectment of tenant for non-payment of monthly rent; that petitioners adopted inconsistent pleas that after admitting tenancy agreement they took U-turn about lease agreement, that they filed suit for specific performance and claimed that lease deed was not even registered and had no legal force---Validity---Record showed that the tenants were accommodated by the appellate court to the maximum, for four months, and after coming to the conclusion that they were delaying the matter unnecessarily opted to decide the appeal in absence of their counsel---Interim orders of the appellate court showed that it was a direction case, plea of the tenants that neither they nor their counsel was aware about the fact that it was a direction case, could not be given any weight---Entire case of the tenants hinged upon a document exhibited by them and by virtue of said document a tenancy agreement was purportedly converted into a lease in perpetuity for 99 years---Document in question specified that in case of failure of landlord, the tenants were given option to claim, through court, its shares/benefits etc---Amount paid by the tenants to landlord was considered as Pagri---Any amount paid by the tenant at the time of renewal of tenancy in addition to security amount was considered "Pagri"---Such facts also affirmed that at the most exhibited document by the petitioners could be treated as renewal of tenancy---If the exhibited document by petitioners, was purportedly executed for 99 years, the same was compulsorily registerable under the Registration Act, 1908---In absence of proper execution and registration of lease in perpetuity the claim of the petitioners was rightly discarded by the appellate court---Tenants while submitting reply to the ejectment petition categorically admitted that they were tenants of the respondents since the year 1972, one of the tenants while appearing in the witness box, admitted that the premises in question were given to them on rent in the year 1972---Exhibited document by the tenants which was a communication by landlord making a priced one of the tenants that he had gifted a portion of his share to his daughter, one of the landlords who would receive rent in future, made it clear that it was tenancy and not lease in perpetuity, otherwise there was no necessity to clarify about the payment of rent in future to the daughter of landlord---Said communication, instead of lending any support to the claim of the tenants went against them---Admittedly, tenancy agreement was executed in the year 1997 so it could not be believed that exhibited lease was not hit by S.10 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, more importantly when the petitioner had already filed a suit for specific performance of agreement---Such aspect also confirmed that the tenants were aware that there was an agreement between the parties and not a lease in perpetuity---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.