2022 PLP 1138 (MLD)

SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J.

The instant petition has been directed against the order dated 14.07.2016, whereby the learned Rent Tribunal accepted the application for deposit of rent filed by respondent No.3 and the judgment dated 24.11.2016, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners.

2. Brief facts necessary for decision of the instant petition are that respondent No.3 filed an application before the learned Rent Tribunal with the contention that he being lessee of the petitioners from long time was paying rent at the rate of Rs.400/- per month regularly without any default, however, they have refused to accept the rent for January, 2016, therefore, he sought permission to deposit the same as per law.

3. The petitioners contested the application on the ground of default in payment of rent from 1993 to 2015 by submitting that initially in the year 1905, the shops/houses on the land owned by provincial government were rented out as per para No.516-A of the Colony Manual under the supervision of Darogha at the rate of Re.1/- per marla per month; that residential areas were leased out for one year which was extendable on year to year basis; that the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs.450/- per marla per month from 1993 to 1996 and thereafter in accordance with the policy of local government the District Assessment Committee enhanced the rate of lease to 5% for residential areas and 10% for commercial areas for the years 1997 to 2015, but despite notice for deposit of the enhanced rent respondent No.3 failed to comply with the same. The learned Rent Tribunal accepted the application and directed respondent No.3 to deposit the rent for the year 2016 keeping in view condition No.7 of the Lease Deed Form sanctioned on 12.08.1971 by the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang and in the meanwhile restrained the petitioners from ejecting respondent No.3 from the shops/houses in question. The petitioners challenged the order of the learned Rent Tribunal by filing an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. Perusal of the record transpires that the learned Rent Tribunal allowed respondent No.3 for deposit of rent for the year 2016 and in the meanwhile petitioners were restrained from ejecting him from the shops/houses. However, this order does not reflect that the petitioners were forbidden from initiating proceedings against the defaulters if there was any violation of the lease agreement regarding deposit of rent in advance every year and as such the order cannot be interpreted to be operative for deposit of the future rent on the same analogy. Likewise, this order also does not stop the Province of Punjab to recover the arrears, if due, from the lessee in any way. Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, empowers the District Collector to initiate proceedings against the lessee in case of any violation of the lease agreement. Lease agreement can also be cancelled and the lessee can be ejected from the land leased out to him but for such action a mechanism procedure has been provided. The department may issue notice for recovery of the arrears, if due, from the lessee and in due course of law proceedings can be initiated.

6. Here I would like to quote section 24 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912:- "

24. Power of imposing penalties for breaches of conditions

When the Collector is satisfied that a tenant in possession of land has committed a breach of the conditions of his tenancy, he may, after giving the tenant an opportunity to appear and state his objection. (a) impose on the tenant a penalty not exceeding one hundred rupees; or (b) order the resumption of the tenancy: Provided that if the breach is capable of rectification, the Collector shall not impose any penalty or order resumption of the tenancy unless has issued a written notice requiring the tenant to rectify the breach within a reasonable time, not being less than one month, to be stated in the notice and the tenant has failed to comply with such notice." This section empowers the Collector that in case of breach of conditions of tenancy he may proceed against the lessee. The petitioner has alternate remedy by invoking the provision of said Act under which the property has been leased out.

7. So far as the impugned order is concerned the same has been passed by the learned Rent Tribunal in accordance with the record produced by the department, as there was nothing in writing till that time regarding approval of the recommendations of the District Assessment Committee for enhancement of the lease amount. There was no need to frame any issue or to record evidence because it was just an application seeking permission to deposit rent. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also rightly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge with the observation that after the approval of Board of Revenue to the new rates of rent proposed by the Assessment Committee, respondent No.3 will be bound to pay all the arrears as well as future rent at the said rate, otherwise as per terms and conditions of rent agreement he will have to face the consequences.

8. For what has been discussed above, it is observed that decisions of the Courts below do not create bar for the authorities/District Collector to proceed against the lessee, if there is any violation or breach of contract on his part; even the said orders are not applicable to the issuance of notice to the lessee for recovery of the arrears, if any. With this observation, the instant petition to the extent of granting permission to deposit the lease amount for the year 2016 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. SA/P-6/L Petition dismissed.