2014 Y L R 1002
[Balochistan]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J
The BANK OF PUNJAB through Regional Chief, General Manager, Quetta ---Petitioner
Versus
KHAN MUHAMMAD and 5 others through Attorney ---Respondents
Civil Revision No.31 of 2012, decided on 19th December, 2013.
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----S.13---Rent deed ---Extension of lease period with mutual consent of parties ---Scope ---
Contention of plaintiffs was that lease period was extended with mu tual consent of parties,
therefore rent was to be enhanced according to rent deed ---Suit was decreed concurrently ---
Validity ---Premises was rented out to the defendant through rent deed for a period of nine years --
-Lease period was extended with mutual con sent of parties after expiry of earlier term of
tenancy ---Defendant itself requested for extension of tenancy which was accepted by the
plaintiffs ---Extended period of tenancy should be deemed to be governed by the rent deed ---If
tenant remained in possess ion of the property without consent of landlord after expiry of tenancy
agreement then tenancy would continue to be governed by the terms and conditions of expired
rent agreement ---Mutual consent between the parties for extension of tenancy period would
make rent agreement alive and both the landlord and tenant were bound by its terms and
conditions ---Rent of premises was to be enhanced @ 15% after every three years as per rent
agreement, therefore defendant was bound to act upon it ---Both the courts below after appraisal
of evidence and material available on the record had recorded correct conclusion ---Defendant
had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by
the courts below ---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Mrs. Zarina Khawaja v. Agha Mehboob Shah PLD 1988 SC 190 and Muhammad
Naseem Khan v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 2002 SC 753 rel.
Farooq Anwar Yousafzai for Petitioner.
Saleem Ansari for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th July, 2013.
JUDGMENT
JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, J. ---Facts of the case are that in the month of July,
2000, the respondents rented out a premises described in the suit, to the petitioner for a period of
nine years, through an agreement/rent deed. Pursuant to the agreement, the monthly rent of the
premises was fixed as Rs.60,000 (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only), which was to be enhanced @
15% after every three years. The lease period was completed in the month of July, 2009, but the
premises was not vacated, hence the respondents filed an eviction application against the
petitioner, which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 10th February, 2010, on the
undertaking of the petitioner that the premises would be vacated in the month of April, 2010, but
failed to do so, hence the respondents filed an execution application, which was allowed. The
petitioner filed an F.A.O bearing No.77 of 2010 before this Court, which was disposed of on
28th June, 2010, on the undertaking that the petitioner shall vacate the premises by or before the
15th September, 2010, and shall regularly pay the monthly rent to the respondents.
2. The respondents claimed that since the extension of lease period is with consent of the
parties, therefore, from July, 2009 onwards, the rent was to be enhanced @ 15%. The
respondents alleged that the increased rent has not been paid by the petitioner, as such, the same
is an arrear of the rent and demanded the same. The petitioner refused to accept the demand of
the respondents, the present suit has bee n filed. The petitioner filed its written statement, alleging
therein that the agreement was expired in the month of July 2009, therefore, its terms and
conditions are not applicable to the extended period of tenancy, therefore, the respondents are not
entitled for the increased rent. The parties produced their respective evidence and recorded their
statements. On conclusion of the case, the learned Civil Judge -IV, Quetta, ("the trial Court"),
decreed the suit by means of the judgment and decree dated 29th April, 2011, feeling aggrieved,
the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge -II, Quetta ("the appellate
Court"), which was dismissed on 31st December, 2011, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Courts below did not consider the
fact that the period of tenancy was expired and thereafter, the extension of the tenancy w.e.f.
August, 2009 till 15th September, 2010, on the basis of a mutual consent, is deemed to be a fresh
agreement, wherein increase in the rent was not agreed, therefore, the respondents were not
entitled for the same, but the Courts below have failed to dilate upon this fact, which is an
illegality and irregularity.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the con tention and stated that the
petitioner was in possession of the property as a tenant, pursuant to the rent agreement. He stated
that though the said agreement was expired in the month of July, 2009, but the parties, with
consent, agreed to extend the lease period, therefore, the petitioner was bound by the agreement.
According to him, the petitioner was under obligation to pay the increased rent of the premises
@ 15%, w.e.f. August, 2009 till 15th September, 2010, but the same has not been done,
therefore, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the
case. The premises was rented out to the petitioner by the respondents through an agreement
dated 5th July, 2000, for a period of nine years, which was expired on July, 2009, however, the
lease period was extended with mutual consent by the parties in F.A.O. No. 70 of 2010 on 28th
June, 2012, wherein the following order was passed by this Court: --
"This appeal has been presented against order and decree dated 26 -5-2010, passed by the
Executing Court.
At the very outset; both the counsel for the parties along with respondent No.1 appeared
in Court and with consent agreed that if the appellant vacate the premises w ithin 2 -1/2 months,
the appeal be disposed of accordingly.
In view of their consent, the appellant is bound to hand over vacant possession of the
Property bearing No. 1583, measuring 3010 Sq.ft. situated at Jinnah Road, Quetta, on or before
15th Septemb er, 2010, the appellant shall regularly deposit the monthly rent on or before 15th of
every succeeding month. In case of failure to pay the rent, he shall be liable to be evicted. In case
the appellant fails to vacate the premises on 15th September, 2010, he shall be evicted from the
premises without any further execution application and the order shall be implemented through
concerned police station.
In view of above, the execution application as well as present appeal stand disposed of in
above terms."
6. It is important to mention here that clause (2) of the agreement deals with the extension
of terms of lease for further period, which is reproduced herein below:
"The lease shall be for an initial term of 9 years commencing from July, 2000 to July
2009. Before the expiry of 9 years term, the lessee shall notify the Lessor of its desire to extend
the term of lease for any further period."
After expiry of the earlier term of tenancy, the lease period was extended. The petitioner
itself requested f or extension of the tenancy, which was accepted by the respondents,
consequently the lease period was extended w.e.f. August, 2009 till 15th September, 2010,
pursuant to the consent order. Clause (2) of the agreement provides an option to the parties to
extend the lease period, therefore, the extended period of the tenancy with consent of the parties
is in consonance with the said clause, as such, the agreement was alive and the extended period
of the lease shall be deemed to be governed by it. Even otherwi se, after expiry of a tenancy
agreement, if a tenant remains in possession of a property without the consent of the landlord,
still the tenancy would continue to be governed by the terms and conditions of the expired
agreement. Reliance has been placed on the cases titled as Mrs. Zarina Khawaja v. Agha
Mehboob Shah, reported in PLD 1988 SC 190, and Muhammad Naseem Khan v. United Bank
Limited, reported in PLD 2002 SC 753. Thus, the mutual consent between the parties for the
extension of tenancy period makes an agreement alive and both the landlord and tenant are
bound by its terms and conditions. Clause (5) of the agreement describes that after expiry of
every three years, the rent of the demised premises shall be enhanced @ 15%, therefore, the
petitioner is bound to act upon it. Admittedly, the rent of the premises was lastly increased by the
petitioners in the month of July, 2006, and was fixed as Rs.79,350, therefore, increase in the rent
@ 15% was due w.e.f. August, 2009. The Courts below, after proper app raisal of the evidence
and the material available on the record, came to a correct conclusion. The learned counsel for
the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of
facts arrived at by the Courts below, warranting interference by this Court in its revisional
jurisdiction.
In view of what has been stated and discussed hereinabove, the petition is accordingly
dismissed.
AG/8/Bal Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.