--Ejectment petition---Forum of filing---Rent Controller Cantonment Board---Jurisdiction---Tenant asserted that the rented premises was situated under limits of..........

Preamble to a statute---Scope---Preamble to a statute is though not an operational part of the enactment but it is a gateway which opens before the Court the purpose and intent of the legislature, which necessitated the legislation on the subject and also sheds clear light on the goals which the legislator aimed to secure through the introduction of such law---Preamble of a statute, therefore holds a pivotal role for the purposes of interpretation in order to dissect the true purpose and intent of the law.

2024 CLC 1402
ABDUL HAMEED vs ARIF JAVED
Punjab Rented Premises Act .

S. 19---Ejectment petition---Forum of filing---Rent Controller Cantonment Board---Jurisdiction---Tenant asserted that the rented premises was situated under limits of cantonment---Petitioner/tenant assailed concurrent findings whereby the Special Judge (Rent) had assumed jurisdiction qua rented premises passing eviction order against him---Validity---Record showed that the landlord/ respondent in his ejectment petition had mentioned the location of the demised premises as other than the concerned cantonment, while in application for leave to contest filed by the petitioner/tenant, it was objected that said property fell within the administration of concerned cantonment---It was evident from the record that the rented premises was in the ownership of real brother of the respondent under a duly registered sale deed and the respondent had filed ejectment petition on behalf of his real brother and executed tenancy agreement with the petitioner---Perusal of said sale deed revealed that demised premises was located within the limits of a Cantonment Board---Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, provides for eviction of tenant from the premises within the limits of cantonment area by applying to the Rent Controller for an order of eviction of a tenant but, in the present case, the Special Judge (Rent), had illegally assumed jurisdiction in the matter, though, he had no power to adjudicate upon the ejectment petition, hence the findings of Special Judge (Rent) were absolutely misconceived and based upon wrong assumption of law---Respondent/landlord sought eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises for which he could have filed petition in the Court of the Rent Controller Cantonment Board under S.17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, who could have exercised jurisdiction under the law---Thus, adjudication, of the ejectment petition filed by respondent, by the Special Judge (Rent), and Additional District Judge/Appellate Court was without jurisdiction which had no legal effect whatsoever.