2012 YLR 1122 (PLP)
ZAHID MASOOD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IJAZ and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 YLR 1122 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Waheed Khan, J |
| Parties | ZAHID MASOOD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IJAZ and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 YLR 1122 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 YLR 1122 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Waheed Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 YLR 1122 (PLP) (ZAHID MASOOD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IJAZ and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saleem Anwar Khan for Petitioner.
- Tariq Mahmood Ansari for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 15 & 22
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Expiry of lease period, ground of
Leave to contest ejectment petition
Order of Special Judge (Rent) refusing to grant such leave upheld by Appellate Authority
Tenant's plea that after expiry of first written tenancy for 11 months, period of tenancy was extended from time to time at enhanced rate of rent, but landlord had not specified period of each extension of tenancy; and that in case of tenancy-at-will, landlord could not demand payment of rent, but could claim compensation for use and occupation of demised premises
Tenant, in leave application, had claimed to have paid to landlord a huge amount as Pagri, whereas neither rent deed found mention thereof nor any material in support thereof was brought on record
Tenant had introduced a new case before High Court as he had not raised such pleas in leave application or memo of appeal
High Court dismissed constitutional petition, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.
Brief facts of the case are that on 17-3-2010 the respondent filed an ejectment petition under section 15 of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 against the petitioner/ tenant for his eviction from Property bearing No.12 known as Malik Din Muhammad Chambers, Kabir Street, Urdu Bazar, Lahore on the ground of default in payment of rent and expiry of the period of tenancy. The application for leave to contest was refused vide order dated 26-10-2010. The ejectment petition was accepted by the Special Judge (Rent), Lahore and the petitioner/tenant was directed to vacate the premises within one month. The petitioner/ tenant filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed vide judgment dated 22-8-2011, hence this petition.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the landlord asserted three different kinds of tenancy. It is submitted that the first tenancy was for a period of 11 months vide rent deed dated 16-11-1993 and after the expiry of 11 months, period of tenancy was extended from time to time at the enhanced rate of rent and that the respondent/landlord did not specify the period of each extension of the tenancy. It is submitted that since it was a tenancy at will, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to demand the payment of rent rather he could claim compensation for use and occupation of the demised premises. He lastly submits that Special Judge (Rent), Lahore has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
3. Conversely, counsel for the respondents submits that the points raised before this Court were neither taken in the application for leave to contest nor in the memo of appeal and counsel for the petitioner has made on attempt to make a new case, thus, this petition is not maintainable.
4. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record has been perused.
5. All the points raised by the petitioner today were neither taken in the application for leave to contest nor in the memo of appeal and counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that the petitioner has tried to introduce a new case. The petitioner has made a prayer for leave to contest as according to him he has paid a huge amount as Pagri but he could not place any material on the file to substantiate the same. In the written rent deed dated 16-11-1993 there is no mention of payment of any Pagri and the contents of the same have not been disputed by the petitioner/tenant. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. This petition has no merit, hence the same is dismissed. S.A.K./Z-9/L Petition dismissed.