 |
| کرایہ دار کیبے دخلی بذریعہ مختار |
خصوصی مختار کے ذریعے دکان خالی کرانے کی درخواست، لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 1150
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Raza Qureshi, J
SHAHZAD --Petitioner
Versus
REHAN DAR and others ---Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4771 of 2025, decided on 12th June, 2025.
(a) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)---
Ss. 2(d) & 19--Ejectment petition---Filing through Special Attorney-Authority of Special Attorney, objection to-Stage-In the present case, the owner of the demised shop filed ejectment petition through a special attorney---Affidavit-in-chief was filed by special attorney who deposed in relevant paragraph thereof that he was lawfully appointed attorney and was also witness to the rent deed---Said affidavit was exhibited in evidence as Exh-A1, whereas special power of attorney was adduced in evidence as Exh-A4---Pertinently, at the time of presentation of special power of attorney no objection was raised by the petitioner/tenant and said documents stood exhibited without objection---The cross-examination of attorney, who appeared as AWI, reflected that not a single question was asked challenging the status of said witness as attorney or the power 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 tantamount to admission---It was probably too late now for the petitioner/tenant to assert that special power of attorney was defective and Special Attorney had no legal capacity to represent the rights and interests of the landlord-Appellate Court rightly curbed the mistake committed by the Rent Tribunal (which had held that only landlord could bring ejectment petition and since the subject matter petition was filed through attorney, therefore, therefore, it was not maintainable)--Language of 5.2(d) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 was misinterpreted by the Rent Tribunal, which clearly reflected 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-Therefore, the Appellate Court had not committed any illegality, warranting any interference---Constitutional petition, filed by tenant, being merit-less was dismissed.
Messrs King Clothing v. Muhabat Khan and others 2012 CLC 939 ref.
(b) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)---
deposition the by the landlord--Therefore, by upending the final order passed by the Re -S.19-Ejectment petition-Plea that rent agreement was extended orally---Validity---Throughout the proceedings before the forums below, petitioner/tenant failed to establish through his deposition that the subject matter lease deed was extended for a period of two years through oral agreement---Appellate Court in relevant paragraphs (Nos. 10 and 11) of impugned judgment answered both queries satisfactorily and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the tenant 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 by 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 e Rent Tribunal, the Rent illegality al, the Appellate Court had not committed any illegality, warranting any interference--Constitutional petition, filed by tenant, being merit-less was dismissed.. dismissed
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 ref.
H. M Asad Ayub, supervised by Nadeem-ud-Din Malik for Petitioner.
Tasleem Amir for Respondent No. 1.