| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2862 2024 SLD 2862 2024 CLC 230 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.80035 of 2022, decided on 5th July, 2023.Date of hearing: 9th May, 2023.
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
Muhammad Iqbal Ghani for Petitioner. Atiq-ur-Rehman Mughal for
Respondent No.2.
Writ Petition No.80035 of 2022, decided on 5th July, 2023.Date of hearing: 9th May, 2023.
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
Muhammad Iqbal Ghani for Petitioner. Atiq-ur-Rehman Mughal for
Respondent No.2.
NASIRA BIBI----Petitioner
VERSUS
SPECIAL JUDGE RENT, LAHORE and another----Respondents
Law: Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009
Section: 15,19,22,25,27,34
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 164
Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)--- ----Ss. 15, 19, 22, 25, 27 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.164---Eviction petition---Documents relied upon by an ejectment petitioner to be appended with the ejectment petition---Non-compliance---Inadvertent defect---Scope---Principles of fairness and equity---Production of evidence having been made available because of modern device---Landlord, after having closed his oral evidence, filed an application for producing further oral evidence and certain additional documents including a DVD allegedly containing voice recording of telephonic conversation between the respondent and the petitioner as well as her husband promising to pay rent ('the voice recording')---Rent Tribunal partially allowed the application---Petitioner (lady/tenant) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to impugn said order to the extent of permission to produce the voice recording---Contention of the petitioner/tenant was that impugned order was passed without any sufficient cause in violation of S.19(3) of Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ('the Act, 2009')---Contention of the respondent/landlord was that S.19(3) or 22(3) were not mandatory provisions of law; while S.34 of the Act 2009 did not oust the principles of fairness and equity to completely preclude the ejectment petitioners from producing documents, which are not appended with the ejectment petition---Validity---Mandatory enactments required strict compliance; an act or thing in non-adherence of the mandatory enactments was invalid--A provision of law which was determined as directory, its substantial compliance was obligatory---When needed, in the interest of justice minor deviations from directory laws could be overlooked provided that there was substantial compliance---It was duty of the Courts to attend to the scheme of Act, 2009 and then to carefully examine the concerned provisions to reach the intent of legislature and to give effect to the same---Provisions of Ss. 19, 22, 25 and 27 of the Act 2009, and keeping in view the object as well as the scheme of the Act, lead to irresistible conclusion that the Legislature has intended that in order to resolve…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492