Law: Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Section: 10-A, 19, 21, 22, 23, 34, 2(b)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section:

Summary The petitioners challenged the Rent Tribunal’s ejectment order dated 06.11.2025 and the appellate judgment dated 10.02.2026, whereby they were directed to vacate the rented premises and pay arrears of rent with 10% annual increase. The High Court held that under Sections 21 and 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, the petitioners’ application for leave to contest was not time-barred because the statutory ten-day period was to be calculated from the date fixed for appearance, i.e. 29.04.2025, and would expire on 09.05.2025, whereas the application was filed on 08.05.2025. Likewise, the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was filed within ten days of the ex-parte order. The Rent Tribunal had wrongly treated the applications as time-barred without explaining the basis, making its order non-speaking and contrary to fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Since the subsequent ejectment orders were based on that defective order, the entire superstructure also could not stand. The High Court therefore set aside the orders dated 18.06.2025, 06.11.2025 and 10.02.2026, restored both applications, and directed the Rent Tribunal to decide them on merits within one month and conclude further proceedings preferably within four months. Tagline A Rent Tribunal cannot curtail the statutory period for filing leave to contest, and an unexplained order treating a timely application as time-barred is a non-speaking order that vitiates the subsequent ejectment proceedings. ORDER; MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR. J.    Through  this  constitutional  petition, Muhammad Waseem Tahir and Muhammad Faisal Tahir, the petitioners (‘who were respondents before the courts below’) have called in question the legality of orders and judgments dated 06.11.2025 and 10.02.2026 passed by the forums below, whereby ejectment petition filed under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 („ACT‟) by Shakeela Parveen, respondent No. 3 (“respondent”) against the petitioners has been concurrently accepted with the result that the petitioners have been directed to vacate the possession of the…