2016 CLCN 48 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

SARFRAZ VS MUKHTAR AHMED 1983 SCMR 1064, 1991 SCMR 1376, 2007 CLC 1151, 2009 CLC 114, 2011 YLR 455, 2013 CLC 414, PLD 2007 SC 45, PLD 2009 SC 453, Constitutional petition--TERM , Ejectment of tenant--Term , Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009--15 , Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009--24 , Ss. 24 & 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenant--- Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant---Default in payment of rent---Effect---Contention of tenant was that he was owner of premises in question and he had filed a suit for declaration in the civil court---Rent Tribunal accepted petition for leave to contest subject to deposit of rent within 30 days from passing of said order but same was not complied with and eviction petition was allowed---Validity---Rent Tribunal while granting leave to contest had powers to pass order for deposit of arrears of rent as well as future rent---If tenancy between the parties had been admitted then defending party would be deemed to have admitted himself as tenant in the premises---Defending party must produce some documents to show his title over the property to establish his claim when tenancy had been denied---Mere denial of tenancy without any solid proof did not debar Rent Tribunal from passing directions for deposit of rent---Filing of civil suit for determination of title as an owner of the premises would not restrict the powers of Rent Tribunal to pass the order for deposit of rent---Rent Tribunal might pass order for disbursement of amount deposited in favour of landlord if proceedings culminate in his favour and if decision was against him then alleged tenant might be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by him---Parties must obey the order of the court/tribunal and any non-compliance of such order might result in dismissal or allowing of the petition---Landlord was owner of the premises on the basis of a sale deed whereas tenant could not show his title over the premises---Tenant had rightly been directed to deposit the rent as his denial of relationship was not supported by any documentary evidence---Tenant had attempted to continue his possession over the premises without payment of rent which could not be allowed under the law---Tenant had failed to comply with the order of Rent Tribunal with regard to deposit of rent within the specified period which was mandatory requirement of law and same would entail the penal consequences---Plea of tenant with regard to ownership of premises was just an assertion and same did not create any right or title nor same would give him a licence to continue possession over the premises without payment of rent until and unless case had been proved before the civil court ---No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.