P L D 2009 Lahore 429 (PLP)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

Respondent No.1 brought an eviction petition against respondent No.2 averring therein that he being owner of a multi-storey commercial building bearing No.5-C-III, Gulberg-III, Lahore, leased out 3rd floor (Ariel view 4th floor) measuring eighteen thousand square feet (hereinafter referred to as " the demised premises") to the respondent No.2 at the monthly rental of Rs.6,48,000 vide lease agreement dated 30-5-2006 and the possession of the said floor was handed over to the said respondent on the agreed date i.e. 1st September, 2006, wherefrom the tenancy commenced. It is also mentioned that as per the lease agreement, the rent was to be enhanced in the light of the stipulation contained therein. It is specifically mentioned as to how such increase was to take place and that respondent No.2 has defaulted in the payment of rent due. In paragraph No.4, it is averred, "That the respondent Bank is irregular in the payment of rent. The respondent Bank has only paid Rs.25,00,000 vide pay order No.0003677 dated 31-5-2006 of Bank Al-Falah Ltd., towards the outstanding rent till this date in spite of repeated requests and demands."

2. The leave application perhaps has been filed by respondent No.2 (that has not been placed on the record) in which, the relationship of tenancy has been refuted. Anyhow, the sister concern of respondent No.2 i.e. the petitioner, moved an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleadment as a party in the petition claiming therein that the demised premises in fact has been rented out to it through a lease agreement dated 11-2-2008. It is stated in the said application that the ejectment petitioner has been initiated by suppressing and concealing material facts so as to get unilateral verdict against the petitioner. The said application has been contested by respondent No.1 by filing a reply, in which it is averred "That the application has been filed with mala fide intention just to save the respondent Bank Alfalah (Pvt.) Ltd. from default. The alleged rent deed has been shown to be executed on 11-2-2008, whereas the authority letter which has been allegedly executed on 24-1-2008 stating therein that the said floor has been rented out to the Wateen Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd. and it has been alleged that the total amount of rent has been received by the petitioner/respondent from Mst. Ayesha Iqbal. Whereas two cheques dated 15-2-2008 which have been annexed with the application are in the favour of Mst. Ayesha Iqbal and those have been issued after the date of authority and other cheques/drafts which have been annexed with the application pertain to the period much before the date of alleged lease agreement which proves the fraud being played with the respondent/petitioner." It is categorically stated that no lease agreement has ever been executed by respondent No.1 with Wateen Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd. and the alleged lease agreement is forged and fabricated document; furthermore, as the demised premises had already been rented out to Bank Alfalah (Pvt.) Ltd. for a particular period, the possession whereof was not surrendered to respondent No.1, therefore, it is not possible that the same property could be rented out to the petitioner. The application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 17-3-2009, hence this writ petition.

3. It is contended that the petitioner was inducted in possession of the demised premises on the basis of lease agreement dated 11-2-2008 which is duly thumb marked by respondent No.1. When questioned, it has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such lease agreement is not registered in terms of section 5 of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007. Obviously, in such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the effect of section 9 of the Ordinance shall come into play and any application, even under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. filed by the petitioner who claimed to he the tenant of the demised properly, shall be hit by the said law and would not he entertain able until and unless a fine equivalent to five per cent of the annual value of the rent of the premises is deposited by the tenant in the Government treasury Besides, a lease agreement is not in the nature of deed poll i.e. "those documents in which there is one party only and are so called because they were at one time polled or cut level at the top. They are chiefly used for the purpose of granting powers of attorney and for exercising powers of appointment or setting out an Arbitrator's Award They are drawn in First person", rather a lease instrument is a bilateral document in which, the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant as stipulated between the parties are clearly spell out; if it is not so, such document cannot be considered to have been duly executed in terms and the context of the law of contract.

4. There is another interesting feature of the case that the petitioner relies upon an alleged letter of authority to receive the rent on behalf of respondent No. 1, which reads as follows:

"Thal I am the owner of 4th floor of Ahad Arcade situated at 5-C Gulberg-III Lahore and have given this floor on rent to Bank Alfalah Limited (after cutting off the typed portion. Wateen Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd /And/Or Rasheen (Pvt.) Ltd. has been written) under the Lease Agreement. I have already taken the rent of the Floor from Mst. Ayesha Iqbal who is my daughter in advance for the years 2007 to 2008. So I further authorize Mst. Ayesha Iqbal to take the rent from Bank Alfalah Limited (again alter cutting off "Bank Alfalah Limited", Wateen Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd./And/Or Rasheen (Pvt.) Ltd." has been written) for 2007 to 2008 on my behalf" This letter of authority is dated 24 1 2008, whereas the lease agreement is claimed to he dated 11-2-2008 without showing as to how the lease of the property, which had been originally rented out to the Bank Alfalah for the period of 10 years, stood terminated and the possession was restored to the lesser so as to he further rented out to the petitioner. There are two cheques, which have been placed on the record envisaging the payment of some amount to Ayesha Iqbal, the daughter of respondent No. 1, and both are dated 15-2-2008 showing the amounts of Rs.50,00,000 and Rs.31,25,

920. It is very strange as to how on the basis of alleged authority letter dated 24-1-2008, the petitioner could pay the rent to Ayesha Iqbal on 15-2-2008 in which, the name of Wateen Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd. has been re-written in the manner mentioned above, which at that time even does not claim to be the lessee of the demised premises, because the alleged lease agreement is dated 11-2-2008.

5. From the above, I am not satisfied if the petitioner has been able to prove its bona fide to be impleaded as a necessary (which it is not) or proper party to the eviction petition; it seems that in order to save its sister concern from the consequences of default, the petitioner filed the present application based upon certain" documents, the genuineness of which is not beyond doubt, besides the vice of invalidity as mentioned earlier. Resultantly, this petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed. However, any observation made in this order shall not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in any other proceedings. M.B.A/W-9/L Petition dismissed.