2016 PLD 123 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

Dr. SHAHIDA HASNAIN VS Mian UMAR IKRAM UL HAQ 2009 SCMR 1396, 2010 YLR 114, 2012 YLR 2293, PLD 1991 SC 242, PLD 1999 SC 1101, PLD 2013 SC 775, Eviction of tenant--TERM , Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009--10 , Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009--15 , Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009--24 , Ss. 24, 10 & 15---eviction of tenant---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant---Tentative rent, deposit of---Scope---Word "rent due" mentioned in S.24 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009---Scope---Agreement to sell---Effect---Leave to contest was granted but no order was passed for deposit of interim rent on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant had yet to be determined---Validity---Tenor of S.24 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 did not make a distinction between the cases where relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted and where same had been denied---Rent Tribunal was bound to make an order for deposit of rent due from the tenant and continue to deposit the same in accordance with tenancy agreement when leave to contest was granted---If there was dispute with regard to rent then Rent Tribunal should tentatively determine the rent and order for deposit of the same---Word "rent due" would include a dispute of the nature where relationship of landlord and tenant had been denied---Tenancy agreement should have been formed the basis for determination of dispute between the parties---Rent Tribunal was not bound to rely upon the agreement to sell while refusing to exercise jurisdiction---Tentative rent might be deposited with the Rent Tribunal in case of dispute with regard to amount or rate of rent or a denial of relationship of landlord and tenant and reimbursed at the conclusion of trial--Such act would also discourage multiplicity of litigation---Agreement to sell or any other agreement between landlord and tenant would not affect relationship between them---Agreement to sell did not create a title or right---If defense had been set up on the basis of same then tenant must first vacate the premises and then he/she might claim on the basis of that agreement to sell---No reason had been given for failure to make an order for payment of interim rent---Impugned order was presumptuous and tendentious---Impugned order to the extent of refusal to order the deposit of rent was set aside---Rent Tribunal was directed to determine the interim rent before proceeding further with the merits of eviction petition---Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.