Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4913 = 2026 SLD 4913 = 2026 CLC 1150
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 4771 of 2025, decided on 12th June, 2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Raza Qureshi, J
Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 913; Irshad Ahmad and others v. Allah Ditta and others 1998 SCMR 948 and Amin and others v. Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad and others PLD 2006 SC 549 ref.        H. M Asad Ayub, supervised by Nadeem-ud-Din Malik for Petitioner.        Tasleem Amir for
Respondent No. 1.

SHAHZAD ---Petitioner

VERSUS

REHAN DAR and others ---Respondents

Law: Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009

Section: 2(d), 19

(a) Punjab Rented Premises Act ( VII of 2009) Ss. 2(d) & 19---Ejectment petition---Filing through Special Attorney---Authority of Special Attorney, objection to---Stage---In the present case, the owner of the demised shop filed ejectment petition through a special attorney---Affidavit-in-chief was filed by special attorney who deposed in relevant paragraph thereof that he was lawfully appointed attorney and was also witness to the rent deed---Said affidavit was exhibited in evidence as Exh-A1, whereas special power of attorney was adduced in evidence as Exh-A4---Pertinently, at the time of presentation of special power of attorney no objection was raised by the petitioner / tenant and said documents stood exhibited without objection---The cross-examination of attorney, who appeared as AWI, reflected that not a single question was asked challenging the status of said witness as attorney or that the power of attorney had failed to fulfill any legal requirement---It is settled law that once a witness has not been cross examined on any fact in issue, the same tantamount to admission---It was probably too late now for the petitioner / tenant to assert that special power of attorney was defective and Special Attorney had no legal capacity to represent the rights and interests of the landlord---Appellate Court rightly curbed the mistake committed by the Rent Tribunal (which had held that only landlord could bring ejectment petition and since the subject matter petition was filed through attorney, therefore, it was not maintainable)---Language of S.2(d) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 was misinterpreted by the Rent Tribunal, which clearly reflected that landlord means the owner of premises and includes a person for the time being entitled or authorized to receive rent in respect of premises---Therefore, the Appellate Court had not committed any illegality, warranting any interference---Constitutional petition, filed by tenant, being merit-less was dismissed.        Messrs King Clothing v. Muhabat Khan and others 2012 CLC 939 ref. (b) Punjab Rented Premises Act ( VII of 2009) S.19---Ejectment petition---Plea that rent agreement…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register