2024 MLD 413
ABDUL REHMAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Eviction petition---Relationship of landlord and tenant, denial of---Rent dispute---Rent Tribunal, jurisdiction of---Scope---Petitioner (eviction petitioner) on the strength of sale deed and mutation, claimed that previous owner of demised premises, who had rented out the premises to respondent , had sold out the premises to the petitioner---Eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent (tenant) was concurrently dismissed on the basis that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties---Contention of the petitioner was that both the Courts below had ignored S. 2(d) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ('the Act, 2009') which recognized that any person having ownership of the premises or part thereof or share in joint khata, where the premises was situated could file ejectment petition---Validity---Combined reading of Ss. 13 & 15 of the Act, 2009 as well as definitions of landlord and tenant as per Ss. 2(d) & 2(l) of the Act, 2009 reflects that remedy of eviction under the Act, 2009 was available only when the landlord of the premises could first establish that one sought to be evicted had a relationship of tenant with such landlord---Eviction petition could be maintained upon expiry of tenancy, failure of payment of rent, breach of terms and conditions of tenancy agreement, violation by tenant of obligation under S.13 of the Act, 2009 and unauthorized use of premises or subletting without written consent, while all the grounds given in S.15 of the Act, 2009 required some violation by the tenant---If a person was not a tenant of the ejectment petitioner that meant no ground was available to such person to seek eviction of tenant---Jurisdiction of Rent Tribunals was provided to regulate the relationships of landlords and tenants, to provide a mechanism for settlement of their disputes in an expeditious and cost effective manner and for the matters connected thereto---Said jurisdiction was not available as an alternate to other jurisdictions provided in law or claims of possession through partition or disputed title or for that matter other claims that were required to be resolved by the Civil Courts---No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below---Constitutional petition filed by the eviction petitioner was dismissed, in circumstances.
Oral tenancy---Scope---Petitioner (eviction petitioner)claimed that respondent /tenant had acquired possession of the premises from the purported previous owner, who had sold the premises to the petitioner through a sale-deed and purported previous owner at the time of sale told respondent/tenant that from then onwards he (occupant) would be tenant of the petitioner, who acknowledged the same---Eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent (tenant) was concurrently dismissed---Stance of respondent (tenant/occupant) was that he was tenant of someone else who was original owner of the demised-property on the strength of an agreement in writing, drawn on stamp paper and registered with Rent Registrar---Validity---In order to prove the issue as to the existence of landlord and tenant relationship, the petitioner had adopted a certain claim/stance, however, in the entire ejectment petition no name of witness was mentioned in the presence of whom the alleged statements were made by purportedly previous owner or respondent/tenant---Nevertheless, the petitioner later introduced two witnesses of the said fact, who tendered their affidavits but one of the said witnesses had contradicted various parts of the very statement of the petitioner as a witness and failed to answer most of the important questions and kept stating that he had no knowledge as to those questions or facts; he though stated that respondent /tenant had acknowledged the tenancy or payment of the future rent to petitioner but contradicted the statement of petitioner as to the time of the alleged oral acknowledgement as well as number of persons present at that time---Not only the petitioner failed to mention names of witnesses of oral tenancy / acknowledgment by respondent / tenant in his leave and led evidence beyond his pleadings but at the same time the only witness produced by the petitioner had contradicted him, causing further damage to his case---Said witness further admitted that he was nephew of the petitioner and gave clear impression that he had stated as such only on account of that relationship---One other person who was also stated to be present at the material time was not produced for cross-examination, claiming that respondent-side had won him over---It was alleged by the petitioner that rent of two months (in the year 2012) was paid by respondent/tenant but he failed to prove the same through oral or documentary evidence---Falsehood to the extent of oral tenancy between petitioner and respondent/tenant or any acknowledgment of respondent/tenant in said regard was amply clear---On the contrary, the respondent/tenant, in support of his claim, brought on record rent-agreement and got the same duly exhibited, which registered document carried presumption of correctness, and the same was further supported by cogent and confidence inspiring evidence of his two witnesses---Thus, there was nothing available on record to establish that the purported previous owner and respondent/tenant had landlord and tenant relationship---Oral tenancy between the two was pleaded to make out the case that the petitioner had stepped into shoes of said previous owner, however, said oral tenancy could not be proved by producing any receipt or leading independent evidence---No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below---
2024 MLD 413
ABDUL REHMAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Eviction petition---Grounds---Property required for personal use---Not a ground in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009---Eviction petitioner had set-up the number of grounds of eviction in relevant paragraph of his eviction-petition in which he had included the ground of requirement of property for personal use also, which (ground) was not available in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 whereas other grounds of default in payment of rent etc.were dependent on the relationship of landlord and tenant---Petitioner failed to establish said relationship between himself and respondent---Petitioner alleged that respondent was tenant of previous owner but he could not prove the same by leading dependable evidence---No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below---
2024 MLD 413
ABDUL REHMAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
0 Comments