2012 PLP 34 (YLR)

SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.

By this single order, Writ Petitions Nos.21415 of 2011, 21416 of 2011, 21417 of 2011, 21418 of 2011 and 21419 of 2011 are proposed to be disposed of due to commonality of the landlords of the rented premises and similarity in the impugned orders.

2. In all these five cases, different petitioners had assailed the orders of learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore dated 14-4-2009 and 20-12-2010 in appeals before the learned first appellate court which were accepted vide order dated 14-9-2011, remanding cases to learned Rent Tribunal for deciding ejectment petitions afresh after having compliance of section 9(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. This finding was given by appellate court keeping in view an unreported judgment of apex court delivered on 26-5-2011 in the case of Allah Ditta Sajid v. Muhammad Saleem Qureshi and others (C.P. No.349-L-2010). The order is impugned in the instant petitions.

3. The main ground alleged in the petitions is that the ejectment petitions were not entertainable as the rent agreement was not brought in conformity with section 5 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, thus appellate court has misconstrued the judgment of apex court.

4. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Apex Court to say that the petitions were not entertainable under section 9 of the Act (ibid) but this argument of the learned counsel is not entertainabie for the simple reason that if judgment of the Apex Court is read minutely, it would show that Rent Tribunal before assuming jurisdiction has to seek compliance of section 9 of the Act (ibid) by directing one of the parties to deposit penalty as prescribed in law. The order of the Apex Court reads as followed:-- "The Rent Tribunal was not competent to assume jurisdiction before directed the respondent/ landlord and to deposit a fine equivalent of the annual value of the rent of the premises in terms of section 9(b) of the Act. Underline is mine." This sentence in the judgment clears the intention of Apex Court that court has to pass an order in terms of section 9(b) before assuming jurisdiction. This finding in judgment does not support contention of the counsel that ejectment petitions were not entertainable by Rent Tribunal. The court after having case on its file is to pass such order which if not complied with, then court lacks jurisdiction and ejectment petitions are not entertainable. In case in hand, this irregularity committed by Rent Tribunal was cured by appellate court by ordering compliance of requirement of section 9(b) of the Act (ibid). It is never intention of law to non-suit a party without affording it reasonable opportunity to comply with relevant provision of law. In this connection guidelines have been provided in the judgment of Apex Court reported as (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 289) wherein it was held that a plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of non-fixation of court-fee unless a court determines amount of court-fee and directs a plaintiff to affix same on a plaint by certain date and then to reject plaint in case of non-compliance of direction. In the judgment, earlier judgment given in Walayat Khatoon's case, was over-ruled whereby plaint was held to be not entertainable if deficiency in court-fee is not made up by the plaintiff. This ratio was adopted by this court in the case of Muhammad Faiz and another v. Ch. Yaqoob Hussain and others (PLD 2010 Lahore 197). In this situation, learned court did not commit any illegality in remanding the cases rather has advanced cause of justice in its true spirit.

5. For what has been discussed above, the petitions failed and are dismissed in limine. S.A.K./S-156/L Petitions dismissed.