2013 MLD 541 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

FAISAL IKRAM VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI Constitutional petition--TERM , Ejectment of Tenant--TERM , Interpretation of Documents--TERM , Lease agreement--Rule , Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009--15 , S. 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment of tenant---Interpretation of documents---Lease agreement---Ejectment of petitioner (tenant) was ordered by Trial Court on the ground that the period of lease under the lease agreement between the parties had expired and unilateral renewal of lease was not permissible under the said lease agreement---Petitioner (tenant) contended that under said lease agreement, the lease was renewable on the option of the petitioner (tenant) which option had been exercised by him---Contention of the respondent(landlord) was that under said lease agreement, the first renewal could be effected only with the mutual consent of the parties but the second term was renewable at the option of the petitioner(tenant)---Controversy between the parties revolved around the lease agreement which was an admitted document between the parties---Use of the word "terms" in the relevant clause of said lease agreement made it clear that both the first and second renewals were at the option of the petitioner (tenant) and it could be safely inferred from the said lease agreement that the first term was renewable for a further term of five years and after that the tenancy shall be renewed for a further term on the option of the petitioner(tenant)---Such option was given to the petitioner(tenant) for both renewals of the tenancy on the same terms and conditions, and that had been categorically clarified by the use of the word "terms" instead "term" in the relevant clause of the said lease agreement---Had the intention of the parties been that the option would confine to the second renewal only, then the word "terms" would not have been used in the relevant clause of the said lease agreement---Use of the words "at the option of the lessee" in the relevant clause, revealed that same was the qualifying clause for both renewals---Clauses of the said lease agreement read and interpreted together on the basis of texts would lead to an inference that the tenancy was renewable for two terms of five years at the option of the petitioner (tenant)---Courts below had failed to construe the terms of the said agreement in true perspective and with reference to the context---Tenancy still existed and the period for the same had not yet expired, therefore, the ejectment petition was premature---Requirement of personal need was not one of the grounds for eviction provided under S.15 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009---Orders of courts below were not sustainable under the law and were set aside---Ejectment petition filed by the respondent (landlord) stood dismissed---Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.