Mst. ASMA KASHIF Versus SPECIAL JUDGE RENT

RAHEEL KAMRAN, J.--- Through this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge Rent, Lahore, whereby while deciding an application filed by respondent No.2/tenant under Section 9 read with Section 8 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2009"), the petitioners/landlords were directed to deposit fine calculated on the basis of monthly rent of Rs.130,000/-, as claimed by them in the ejectment petition as present value of rent.

2.The petitioners instituted an ejectment petition under Section 19 of the Act of 2009 against respondent No.2 in respect of Shop No.23, Ground Floor, Rehmani Market behind Shah Alam Market, Lahore, mainly on the grounds of expiry of tenancy and default in payment of rent. It was pleaded that the suit premises originally belonged to the petitioners' father Sheikh Muhammad Idrees, who died in the year 2002, whereafter the property devolved upon the petitioners through mutation of inheritance. It was further alleged that the respondent paid rent only for a few months and thereafter defaulted in payment of rent since 2015. The petitioners. asserted that the monthly rent of the shop was Rs.130,000/- and claimed recovery of arrears accordingly.

During pendency of the ejectment petition, respondent No.2 filed an application under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 2009, contending that the tenancy had not been brought in conformity with the provisions of the Act and therefore the ejectment petition could not be entertained unless the petitioners deposited fine equivalent to ten percent of the annual value of rent. The Special Judge Rent through the impugned order dated 05.01.2026, observed that the petitioners had deposited fine equivalent to ten percent of annual rent of only Rs.1274/- at the time of filing the ejectment petition, whereas they themselves had asserted that the monthly rent at present was Rs.130,000/-, Consequently, the petitioners were directed to deposit fine calculated on the basis of the said claimed rent. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is legally unsustainable as the Rent Tribunal has mechanically adopted the rate of rent of Rs.130,000/- per month merely on the basis of a unilateral assertion made in the ejectment petition without any adjudication or supporting material. He argued that the rate of rent was seriously disputed by respondent No.2 and therefore, the Tribunal was under a duty to undertake at least a tentative determination before computing the fine under Section 9(b) of the Act of 2009. Learned counsel emphasized that the requirement of deposit of fine, though mandatory, cannot be enforced in an arbitrary manner so as to prejudice the rights of the petitioners. He added that the amount initially deposited by the petitioners was based on the last agreed rent and in the absence of any determination by the Tribunal, the petitioners could not be burdened with an excessive and unverified liability.

4.Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and contended that since the petitioners themselves had asserted the prevailing rate of rent to be Rs. 130,000/- per month in the ejectment petition, they were estopped from resiling from the said position for the purposes of deposit of fine. He argued that Section 9 of the Act of 2009 is mandatory in nature and the Rent Tribunal cannot entertain the ejectment petition unless the fine is deposited in accordance with the 'annual value of the rent' as disclosed by the landlord. Learned counsel emphasized that the petitioners had deliberately deposited a nominal amount of fine in order to circumvent the statutory requirement, which justified the direction issued by the Rent Tribunal. He added that no detailed inquiry is envisaged at this stage and the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the admitted stance of the petitioners as reflected in the ejectment petition.

5.Arguments heard. Record perused.

6.The controversy involved in the instant case lies in a narrow compass, yet carries significant practical implications, that for the purposes of Section 9(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, whether the amount of fine is to be computed solely on the basis of the rate of rent claimed by the landlord in the ejectment petition, or whether, in a situation where such rate is disputed, the Rent Tribunal is required to undertake a tentative determination of the rate of rent before calculating the fine.

7.Before adverting to the precise controversy, it would be advantageous to reproduce Section 9 of the Act of 2009, which reads as under:

A plain reading of Section 9 ibid reveals that where a tenancy does not conform to the provisions of the Act, the Rent Tribunal is precluded from entertaining an application unless the prescribed fine, calculated on the basis of the "annual value of the rent of the premises," is deposited. The provision is couched in mandatory terms and operates as a statutory precondition to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Rent Tribunal. The object and scheme of the Act of 2009, when read as a whole, provide important contextual guidance. Section 5 mandates that tenancy agreements must be reduced into writing and presented before the Rent Registrar, thereby ensuring certainty with respect to essential terms, including the rate of rent. Section 8 obliges existing tenancies to be brought in conformity with the Act, while Section 9 prescribes a penal consequence for non-compliance. The legislative intent, therefore, is to eliminate uncertainty and disputes regarding foundational aspects of tenancy, including the rate of rent 1 . In this backdrop, the expression "annual value of the rent" occurring in Section 9 assumes vital importance. The statutory provisions, however, do not prescribe any specific mechanism for determination of such value in cases where the rate of rent is disputed between the parties. This legislative silence must be addressed by adopting an interpretation which advances the object of the Act and avoids arbitrary or inequitable consequences.

8.It is by now settled that the provisions of Section 9 are mandatory in nature and the Rent Tribunal is under an obligation to ensure deposit of fine before proceeding further in the matter. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Rana Abdul Hameed Talib v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others" (PLD 2013 SC 775) has elaborated the scope, object and mandatory character of Section 9 and has held that no proceedings on merits can be undertaken unless the fine is deposited. The said judgment also clarifies that the requirement of deposit of fine is intrinsically linked with the enforcement of rights under the Act and is not merely procedural. However, the determination of fine, particularly where the rate of rent is disputed, presents an interpretative difficulty which cannot be resolved in isolation and must be approached in the light of settled canons of statutory construction. In this regard, it would be advantageous to refer to the following guiding principles of interpretation expounded in the case of "Muhammad Usman and another v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others" (PLD 2010 Lahore 281) :-

Applying the aforesaid principles to the scheme of the Act of 2009, it becomes necessary to examine the statutory framework for guidance. In this regard, Section 24 of the Act, which governs deposit of rent during pendency of proceedings, provides a useful indication for resolving the present controversy and is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

Subsection (2) ibid specifically stipulates that where there is a dispute as to the rate of rent, the Rent Tribunal shall tentatively determine the same for the purpose of directing deposit of rent during pendency of proceedings. When examined in the light of the afore-referred principles of statutory interpretation, particularly the duty of the Court to suppress mischief and advance the remedy, this provision assumes greater significance in resolving the present controversy. It reflects a legislative recognition that, in situations involving disputed foundational facts, a tentative determination is not only permissible but necessary to regulate proceedings in a fair and workable manner.

9.When the aforesaid interpretative principles are brought to bear upon Section 9 of the Act of 2009, it becomes evident that the object of the statute would stand defeated if the amount of fine were to be mechanically computed on the basis of a unilateral assertion of either party without any judicial scrutiny. Such a course would open the door to abuse, enabling inflation or suppression of the rate of rent so as to manipulate the quantum of fine, thereby frustrating the very purpose of the provision. Equally, a rigid insistence on an outdated or nominal rent, detached from the realities of the tenancy, would render the provision ineffective and otiose. The correct approach, therefore, is to adopt a construction which harmonizes the text with the context and advances the legislative intent. In this regard, the procedural analogy drawn from the principles governing deposit of court-fee is also instructive. It is well-settled, through consistent pronouncements of this Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, that where the quantum of court-fee is in dispute or has not been properly assessed, it is the duty of the Court to determine the same and afford an opportunity to the concerned party to make good the deficiency within a specified period. The underlying rationale is to ensure that a litigant is not non-suited on account of an uncertain or disputed fiscal obligation without first being put to notice of the correct liability.

10.Viewed in the above perspective, the requirement of deposit of fine under Section 9, being a condition precedent to the entertaining of proceedings, must be applied in a manner consistent with fairness and due process. Accordingly, where the rate of rent under a duty to undertake a tentative determination of the rate of rent, in line with the principle embodied in Section 24(2) of the Act, and thereafter compute the fine on the basis of such tentative assessment, while also granting reasonable opportunity to deposit the amount so determined.

11.Reverting now to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the petitioners asserted the rate of rent to be Rs.130,000/- per month as the prevailing market value. However, the respondent did not admit the said rate and, on the contrary, contested the same. In such circumstances, the Rent Tribunal was not justified in mechanically adopting the asserted rate of rent as the basis for calculation of fine. At the same time, the amount of fine to the tune of Rs. 1274/-initially deposited by the petitioners, calculated on the basis of a nominal rent, also does not appear to reflect the "annual value of the rent" within the contemplation of Section 9(b), particularly in the absence of any supporting material. Thus, both extremes, i.e., acceptance of an unverified asserted market rate on the one hand and reliance on an outdated or nominal rent on the other, fail to satisfy the statutory requirement. The proper course for the Rent Tribunal, in the circumstances, was to tentatively determine the rate of rent on the basis of available material and then direct deposit of fine accordingly. The failure to adopt such an approach renders the impugned order legally unsustainable to that extent.

12.For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order, to the extent it determines and directs deposit of fine under Section 9(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 on the basis of the asserted rate of rent, is set aside. The Rent Tribunal is directed to undertake a tentative determination of the rate of rent strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, and thereafter to recalculate the amount of fine payable under Section 9(b) of the Act of 2009. The petitioners shall deposit the amount so determined within the time to be specified by the Rent Tribunal.

It is clarified that the determination of the rate of rent made for the purpose of Section 9 shall be purely tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the rights of the parties at the time of final adjudication.

UN/A-21/L Petition allowed.

1 Muhammad Usman and another v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others" (PLD 2010 Lahore 281).