SHAHZAD Versus REHAN DAR
MUHAMMAD RAZA QURESHI, J. --- Through this Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Petitioner being Respondent in an Ejectment Petition has questioned the vires , validity and legality of impugned Judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed by learned Appellate Court, pursuant whereto Order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal dismissing Ejectment Petition filed by Respondent No.1 was upended and he was directed to vacate the subject matter shop within a period of 30 days.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned Judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Rent Tribunal rightly observed that Respondent No.1 had failed to establish his case demonstrated through Ejectment Petition. According to learned counsel, the Appellate Court failed to advert that the power of attorney presented by the attorney of Respondent No.1 was defective in its form and substance, therefore, the institution of Ejectment Petition itself was defective. Adds that admittedly the Petitioner never committed default towards payment of rent, therefore, by reversing the Final Order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, the learned Appellate Court has committed material illegality.
3. Conversely, learned counsel representing Respondent No.1 has supported the impugned Judgment and submits that instant Petition is liable to be dismissed for a simple reason that learned Appellate Court corrected the erroneous view taken by the learned Rent Tribunal. According to learned counsel, once a tenant is always a tenant and since the rent agreement had expired, the Petitioner failed to substantiate through cogent evidence that the period of rent was ever extended through contract.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, record has been perused, which reflects that Respondent No.1 filed an Ejectment Petition under section 19 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (the "Act" ) seeking eviction of Petitioner from demised premises i.e. shop. The status of exchanged pleadings inter se parties reflects that the ownership of Respondent No.1 and relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied. The ground agitated in paragraph 2 of Ejectment Petition filed by Respondent No.1 was that rent agreement stood expired on 31.03.2023 and he served a legal notice dated 12.04.2023 upon the Petitioner that since period of tenancy had expired, therefore, the subject matter shop be vacated. The Petitioner filed an application for leave to contest, the contents whereof reflect that the status of parties as well as rate and period of rent was admitted and the only defence raised by him was that after expiry of rent period on 31.03.2023, the parties had mutually agreed to extend the rent period till 31.03.2025. The application for leave to contest was allowed and the Tribunal framed as many as two issues and through Final Order dated 06.09.2024 dismissed the Ejectment Petition. Upon institution of appeal by Respondent No.1, the learned Appellate Court reversed the Final Order and allowed Ejectment Petition.
5. There are two most crucial and pivotal issues which require probe for determination of fate of instant Petition. Firstly, whether attorney of the landlord was authorized to institute the Ejectment Petition? An interlinked issue with this question is whether the learned Rent Tribunal was legally justified to hold that since landlord had not filed the Ejectment Petition himself, therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed? The second question is whether the tenant succeeded in establishing that the rent agreement stood orally extended till 31.03.2025?
6. So far as first question is concerned, the owner of the subject matter shop is Rehan Dar, who filed Ejectment Petition through special attorney Muhammad Haseeb Butt. The affidavit-in-chief was filed by special attorney who deposed in paragraph 2 thereof that he was lawfully appointed attorney and was also witness to the rent deed. The affidavit was presented in evidence as Exh-Al, whereas special power of attorney was adduced in evidence as Exh-A4. At the time of presentation of special power of attorney no objection was raised by the Petitioner and these documents stood exhibited without any objection. The cross-examination on attorney who appeared as AW1 reflects that not a single question was asked challenging the status of said witness as attorney or that the power of attorney had failed to fulfill any legal requirement. It is settled law that once a witness has not been cross-examined on any fact in issue, the same tantamounts to admission. Reliance in this regard is placed on case law reported as "Messrs King Clothing v. Muhabat Khan and others" (2012 CLC 939) . It is probably too late now for the Petitioner to assert that special power of attorney was defective and Haseeb Butt had no legal capacity to represent the rights and interests of the landlord namely, Rehan Dar.
7. The learned Appellate Court rightly curbed the mistake committed by the learned Rent Tribunal who had held that only landlord could bring ejectment petition and since the subject matter Petition was filed through attorney, therefore, it was not maintainable. The language of section 2(d) of the Act was misinterpreted by the Rent Tribunal, which clearly reflects that landlord means the owner of premises and includes a person for the time being entitled or authorized to receive rent in respect of premises.
8. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner had been paying the rent to the attorney of Respondent No.1 throughout the tenancy period. It is also noteworthy that the learned Rent Tribunal even failed to give any finding in the light of respective depositions of the parties that whether period of tenancy had expired or not? This was issue No.1 and by not giving any finding on that issue, the learned Rent Tribunal had committed a very serious material irregularity. The Petitioner himself appeared in the witness box as RW1 who admitted his status as tenant and conceded that last payment of rent was made to attorney, Muhammad Haseeb Butt and he also conceded that subject matter lease deed expired on 31.03.2023 in the following terms:
9. Throughout the proceedings before the forums below, Petitioner failed to establish through his deposition that the subject matter lease deed was extended for a period of two years through oral agreement. The learned Appellate Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of impugned Judgment answered both queries satisfactorily and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the Respondent had failed to discharge the onus on the issue that the period of expired lease deed actually stood extended through oral agreement. The settled position of law remains that once a tenant is always a tenant and if it is not proved on record that the period of tenancy stood extended the impact of oral tenancy travels from month to month and Petitioner being a tenant was under an obligation to vacate the same upon intimation/demand for vacation of the demised premises by the landlord. Reliance in this regard is placed upon "Nazir Ahmad v. Mst.Sardar Bibi and others" (1989 SCMR 913), "Irshad Ahmad and others v. Allah Ditta and others" (1998 SCMR 948) and "Amin and others v. Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad and others" (PLD 2006 SC 549) .
10. After analyzing the matter from all aspects and evaluating the evidence on record, this Court is convinced that by upending the Final Order passed by the Tribunal, the learned Appellate Court had not committed any illegality. Despite hectic efforts of learned counsel for the Petitioner this Court is not convinced that impugned Judgment warrants any interference.
11. Consequently, instant, Petition has no merits and same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
MQ/S-65/L Petition dismissed.