2007 PLP 2995 (YLR)

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against his eviction from the premises of bookshop in the Government Jinnah Degree College for Women, Mozaug Lahore. The two learned courts below by impugned orders dated 24-12-2005 and 16-5-2006 have declined to grant interim relief to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is a lessee under an agreement dated 14-9-2004 allowing the petitioner lease of the said premises for. a bookshop inside the college compound for the period 1-10-2004 until 30-9-2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.2500 payable in advance for four monthly periods. Following expiry of the lease agreement, the petitioner has continued to deposit rent in the bank account of the respondent college and correspondingly he has been allowed to operate his bookshop. Consequently, it is contended that the petitioner is deemed to be holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as lessee on the terms contained in the aforesaid lease agreement. He claims that because condition No.8 in the aforesaid agreement is a provision for increase in rent therefore that agreement is also deemed to have been renewed. He submits further that the impugned notice of termination of lease dated 28-9-2005 has been issued under influence and is illegal. The agreement of lease was entered under the sanction of the College Council whereas the impugned termination letter was issued by the Principal on 28-9-2005.

3. Learned counsel for respondents has answered the points raised. He submits that the alleged agreement is not one of lease but is a contract to provide services at the premises of the respondent-college. Its duration is specifically united to one year, which expired on 1-10-2004. The condition for increase in rent is applicable only if the service contract is extended and neither the college administration nor .the College Council has granted such extension. It is denied that the respondent has received any rent for the post expiry period. Amounts allegedly deposited by the petitioner in the respondent's bank account without permission, authority or consent of the respondent-college cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner. As such there is no acceptance of rent in terms of section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882 nor assent by the respondent-college has been given for the petitioner to continue in possession of the contracted premises. The failure by the respondent-college to forcibly eject the petitioner cannot be a serious plea because recourse to force is not an option with the respondent women's college. The matter of authority to issue the impugned letter is one of internal administration/ management and cannot concern the petitioner. The petitioner has already overstayed his entitlement by more than one year. A prayer is made .that the instant petition seeking interim relief be declined.

4. The plea of holding over may have had prima facie force if consent thereto of the lesser is demonstrated by the some document. In the present case, the absence of any such document and the opposition by the respondent-college authorities to this plea of the petitioner squarely negates that stand. The petitioner has not placed any receipt by the respondent on record to show that rent has been received and acknowledged -consensually. Unilateral payments made into some bank account without concurrence and acknowledgment of the respondents does not prima facie support the plea of holding over. Likewise, the plea that the petitioner has not been forcibly removed from the. premises is inconsequential because without further evidence the Court cannot presume the same. Accordingly the petitioner does not have a prima facie case. The balance of convenience too lies in favour of the respondent-college because unless proved otherwise, a stranger has no place in a women's college. No case in therefore made out for interference with the concurrent view expressed by the learned courts below. Petition dismissed. H.B.T./J-12/L Revision dismissed.