2012 PLP 888 (CLC)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19-7-2011 passed by Special Rent Tribunal, Bahawalpur and judgment dated 22-8-2011 passed by District Judge, Bahawalpur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner on 26-3-2011. The petitioner was summoned. He filed application for grant of leave to contest the ejectment petition on 18-5-2011. Reply was called for from the respondents Nos.3 and 4 who filed reply of the application. The Special Rent Tribunal vide order dated 19-7-2011 dismissed the application for grant of leave to defend the ejectment petition and accepted the ejectment petition. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was also dismissed by the District Judge, Bahawalpur vide judgment dated 22-8-2011. Hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was tenant under the respondents Nos.3 and 4 but with the operation of law after passing of orders of the Executing Court the premises was attached and thereafter it was auctioned and that in the auction proceedings the petitioner paid Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, relationship of tenant and landlord does not exist between the parties. Further states that both the Courts below have not considered this aspect of the case and that the ejectment petitioners i.e. respondents Nos.3 and 4 have not fulfilled the requirements under section 9 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 states that the petitioner has dishonestly denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that in a previous litigation even up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court the petitioner admitted respondents Nos.3 and 4 to be landlords of the suit premises and that it was proved that the petitioner has not paid the rent as under the agreement he was bound to deposit the same in the bank account of the respondents. Learned counsel states that if there is any irregularity in compliance of section 9 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, the respondents are even now ready to deposit 10% of the annual rent of the suit premises.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. Facts and circumstances of the case are mentioned with full detail in the judgment of the learned District Judge which need not be reproduced here.

7. As the provision is directory in nature, therefore, keeping in view principles as laid down by this Court and august Supreme Court of Pakistan for deposit of court-fee it is fundamental duty of the Court first to determine the amount and give chance to deposit the same within specified period. The Special Rent Tribunal has not ordered for deposit of the same. Therefore, no one can be punished for act of the Court. Even otherwise, deposit of fine is a matter between the ejectment petitioners and the State and the writ petitioner cannot take benefit of non-compliance of this provision of law. Since respondents Nos.3 and 4 have claimed rent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month, therefore, in order to comply with the provision of section 9 of aforementioned Act, they are directed to deposit Rs.6 000/- before the Special Rent Tribunal till 30-11-2011.

8. The stance taken by the writ petitioner in his application for grant of leave to defend the ejectment petition was not an honest stance. Admitted position at the time of filing of the application for leave to defend the ejectment petition was that the property was owned by ejectment petitioners/respondents Nos.3 and 4 and the petitioner was in possession of this property as tenant. It is fundamental rule that once tenant is always tenant. The tenant put in possession of the property cannot afterwards deny from the relationship of landlord and tenant. The legal position previous to filing of the ejectment petition was that the property was attached in execution of a decree and was put to auction which was quashed and the ejectment petitioners were and remained owner and landlord of the property. The tenant/petitioner tried to remain in possession of the property for a long period without payment of rent under the umbrella of litigation of the landlords with other parties.

9. This is a constitutional petition filed by the tenant to seek indulgence of this Court. The first and important principle to exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in favour of a party is that the party seeking indulgence must come to the Court with clean hands. As I have discussed above, the petitioner is not with clean hands before this Court. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any jurisdictional defect in order/judgment passed by the Special Rent Tribunal and the appellate Court

10. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition having no force is dismissed, K.M.Z./M-19/L Petition dismissed.