2011 PLP 755 (CLC)

RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.

The petitioner has assailed the vires of judgment and decree dated 29-3-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby an appeal filed by him against the' eviction order dated 8-12-2009 passed by learned Civil Judge/Rent Tribunal, Kallar Syedan, District Rawalpindi, was dismissed.

2. The respondent No.1/landlord had sought the ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from three shops along with hall on the upper portion forming part of the property, fully described in para-1 of the petition (hereinafter called the rented premises). It was contended that the rented premises were rented out to the petitioner at the monthly rent of Rs. 18,000 for a period of three years w.e.f. 1-1-7005, which has expired on 31-12-2007. It was also alleged that the petitioner/tenant did not pay rent from February, 2009 so was wilful defaulter and that he has sublet the premises and also made unauthorized charges. The landlord further contended that he required the rented premises for his personal use and occupation in good faith.

3. The petitioner/tenant submitted an application seeking leave to defend the 'petition. This petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Tribunal on 18-12-2009 by holding that the fixed period of tenancy has expired on 31-12-2007. Consequently the ejectment petition was accepted and the petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession to the landlord within a period of four months. This order was assailed through an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment and decree.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the learned courts below have erred in disallowing the petition for leave to defend moved by him and thus have caused gross miscarriage of justice. It is also contended that after expiry of the fixed period on 31-12-2007 the landlord had allowed him to remain in possession and as such the period of tenancy stood extended automatically.

5. The learned counsel for the landlord/respondent has vehemently controverted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that no extension was agreed to by the respondent/landlord.

6. The rent deed, execution whereof is admitted by the petitioner/tenant, shows that it was for fixed period of three years w.e.f. 1-1-2005 to 31-12-2007. There is no proof to substantiate the claim of the tenant/petitioner that any extension in the initial period was agreed to by the landlord/respondent. The holding over tenant cannot claim extension as of right. The contention that without registration of the rent deed under section 5 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, the ejectment petition was not competent has no force as a period of two years was granted to the landlords and tenants of the existing tenancies to bring the same in conformity with the provisions of this Act. Similar provision was available in the Punjab Rent Premises Ordinance, 2007 also so the landlord/respondent cannot be non-suited on the ground that the rent note was not got registered with the Rent Registrar.

7. For the reasons supra, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge whereby the ejectment order was upheld does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The writ petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant has established a business in the rented premises so he is given a period of three months from today to vacate the same. H.B.T./M-625/L Petition dismissed.