2013 PLP 473 (YLR)

ASAD MUNIR, J.

This writ petition calls into question order dated 9-10-2010, whereby the learned Special Judge (Rent) Lahore, allowed respondent No.2's application for deposit of fine prescribed in section 9(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that on 9-7-2008 respondent No.2 filed a petition for ejectment of the petitioner from a house situated in Saeed Park, Multan Road, Lahore. The said ejectment petition was allowed by the Special Judge (Rent), Lahore vide order dated 13-1-2010 against which petitioner's appeal is pending before the learned Addl: District Judge, Lahore.

3. Record shows that the said ejectment petition was filed without complying with section 9 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, as neither a registered rent agreement was filed nor the requisite fine equivalent to 10 per cent of the annual value of rent of the premises was deposited. However, respondent No.2 on 17-4-2010 filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge seeking leave to deposit the fine due and payable under section 9(b) of the said Act on the ground that neither the Special Judge (Rent), Lahore had passed any order for the deposit of fine nor any objection was raised by the petitioner. This application for deposit of 10 per cent fine of the annual rent was contested by the petitioner but the learned Addl: Sessions Judge relying on Muhammad Fayyaz and another v. Muhammad Yaqub Hussain and another (PLD 2010 Lahore 197), vide order dated 9-10-2010 allowed the application and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the fine amounting to "Rs.12000 in the Government Treasury till 25-10-2010 failing which penal provisions will be invoked in accordance with law". Admittedly, the fine was paid by respondent No. 2 in compliance with the order dated 9-10-2010.

4. While challenging the learned Addl. District Judge's order dated 9-10-2010, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of section 9 of the Act to contend that if a landlord does not deposit 10 per cent fine at the time of filing the ejectment petition, no indulgence can be shown to him for payment of the fine later. In support of his stand-point learned counsel has relied upon Messrs WATEEN TELECOM (PVT). LTD. through Attorney v. Malik ABDUL AHAD and 2 others (PLD 2009 Lahore 429).

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the precedent relied upon by him does not help him as it was a case where a tenant who had filed an application before the Special Judge (Rent) had not at all deposited the requisite fine whereas in the present case the question that needs to be answered is as to whether the court can allow time to a landlord to deposit the fine if he has not done so while filing the ejectment petition. I have had occasion to go through the judgment in Muhammad Fayyaz and another v. Muhammad Yaqub Hussain and another, supra which exhaustively addresses the issue before me and which was also relied upon by the learned Addl: District Judge while passing the impugned order. The said precedent is on all fours with the facts of the present case and I respectfully agree with its interpretation of section 9(a) and section 9(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. In this respect, it would be beneficial to refer to para. 23 of the said judgment which is reproduced below:-- "In view of what has been discussed, the answer to the above question is that if a petition comes before a Rent Tribunal, which does not comply with the requirement of section 9(a) or (b) of the Act, the Rent Tribunal cannot consider, proceed or adjudicate upon it on merits. However, the Rent Tribunal should either on its motion or at the instance of either party allow reasonable time to the defaulting party to deposit the entire amount of fine or if any amount less than what is due has been deposited, to make up the deficiency within a time specified by the Tribunal. If the amount so directed to be deposited is not deposited within the time specified or such extended time, as may have been allowed by it, the Tribunal may proceed to dismiss the petition".

6. Following the above interpretation of section 9(b) of the Act, an omission or failure to deposit the requisite fine at the time of filing the ejectment petition is not fatal but can be remedied by the landlord if he deposits the fine later upon being allowed to do so by the Special Court (Rent). In this perspective, I find that the impugned order, allowing an opportunity to the respondent-landlord to pay the requisite fine, is unexcep-tionable.

7. For the reasons stated above, I find that there is no legal or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order nor does it suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Accordingly, this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine. KMZ/M-148/L Petition dismissed.