2012 PLP 91 (SCMR)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

Petitioner, the tenant, has lost to the cause of eviction initiated by respondent No.1 against him before the Special Rent Tribunal under the provisions of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (The Act) as by refusing leave to the petitioner, the ejectment order was passed against him on the grounds of default in payment of rent, as also the subletting of the property by the aforesaid forum through an order dated 16-3-2010. The appeal and the constitution petition filed by the petitioner have also failed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the tenancy was not in conformity with the provisions of section 9 of the Act, therefore, the petition could not be entertained, the view set out by the forums below to the contrary, is patently illegal and cannot sustain in law; it has also been argued that as the dispute between the parties is in the nature of factual controversy, therefore by allowing the petitioner leave to contest the eviction application the rent Tribunal should have framed issues and enabled the parties to lead evidence.

3. Heard. As far as the first submission is concerned, suffice it to say that the objection of the petitioner about the maintainability/ entertainment of the eviction application of the respondent was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 19-1-2010. This order was not further challenged through any constitution petition, furthermore, when the final ejectment order dated 16-3-2010 was passed by the Tribunal the petitioner in appeal before the Additional District Judge did not challenge order dated 19-1-2010. The argument, that it was assailed in the constitution petition at the time of challenging the final order of the Rent Tribunal and the appellate forum; suffice it to say that such would not be relevant, as the order had to be challenged at the first available opportunity i.e. when the petitioner had filed appeal against the final order of eviction dated 16-3-2010. The submission that the Rent Controller should have framed issues, also has no force, because it is not required under the law that issues must necessarily be framed in all the cases, rather, the trial of the matter would be proceeded only when the tenant successfully cross the stage of leave. Anyhow, leaving apart the proposition of subletting, which may require evidence for proof/disproof thereof, respondent however was bound to enhance 25% rent after every three years, but admittedly it has not been so done therefore, notwithstanding the subletting, the default on the part of the petitioner stand duly proved. We are not impressed that the landlord/respondent should have served upon the petitioner/tenant the notice asking for the payment of the increased rent and only on lapse thereafter, the default could be said to have been committed, rather the said increase was envisaged by the statue itself and the petitioner was duty bound to enhance the rent, failure whereof would entail the consequences of wilful default.

4. In the light of what has been stated above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal declined. S.A.K./A-43/SC Leave refused.