| Case ID |
16badedc-9e92-4a6a-9f29-5fe7f708af36 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No.21238 of 2010 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 29, 2011 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM ROZA SHAMSI, J.--- This constitutional petition is directed against an order dated 16-9-2010 passed by learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore whereby leave application to contest ejectment petition was allowed in favour of the respondent.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Abdul Kareem petitioner instituted an ejectment petition against Shakeel Ahmad. etc., from the rented premises on the grounds mentioned in the ejectment petition in which proceedings the respondent appeared in the court on 5-9-2008 and the court adjourned the case to 15-9-2008 for filing leave application. On the said date, the leave application was filed and court vide order dated 16-1-2009 dismissed same followed by order of ejectment. The appeal preferred against the eviction order was allowed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment dated 17-9-2010 and the case was remanded to learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore for decision afresh. Subsequently, in the post remand proceedings the learned Rent Controller vide impugned order allowed the leave application permitting respondent to contest the ejectment petition as the respondent had raised plausible defence of denial of tenancy.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the leave application was filed with a delay of one day as such the learned trial court committed illegality in granting the permission to contest the eviction petition. He elaborated his arguments by submitting that on 5-9-2008 the court directed the respondent to file application, which was filed on 15-9-2008 thus it was barred by one day as the said application was to be filed within ten days starting from 5-9-2008 to 15-9-2008 and the first day while counting the 10 days was not to be excluded from the calculation.. In this respect he has relied upon the meaning of word "within" as defined in the Oxford Dictionary. He has also referred. to section 22(2) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent while relying upon the provisions of section 12 of Limitation Act, 1908 argued that first day is to be excluded from the calculation for counting the time of 10 days and in .this manner the leave application filed by the respondent is within 10-days from the date of his first appearance in the court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent in view of the provisions of section 9 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 is untenable for the reasons that the proviso to the Section of Act (Supra) excludes the application of the Limitation Act, 1908 where the provisions of said Act, 1908, are made applicable. In the instant case the provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 have not been made applicable to in rent matters for the reason that rent law itself provides the timeframe for conducting proceedings there-under and for availing further remedies.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is equally not convincing in view of section 8 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 which provides the exclusion of the first day in calculating the period of limitation. This provision more particularly is A applicable to the statutes to which the Limitation Act, 1908 is not applicable. If the time of 10-days prescribed for filing leave application is counted according to the provisions of section 8 then the application filed by the respondent on 15-9-2008 is well within time. The word "within" has been used in different other special statutes also; the interpretation for calculating time period shall be governed by provisions of General Clauses Act, 1956. Keeping in view this beneficial interpretation of section 8, of Act (supra) this Court is of the view that the application filed by the respondent for contesting the ejectment petition was within the statutory period.
7. In view of the above, the petition having no merits is dismissed. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case Writ Petition No.21238 of 2010 decided on November 29, 2011, by the Lahore High Court, the petitioner Abdul Karim challenged an ejectment petition filed by Shakeel Ahmad and others under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. The court examined critical sections of the involved laws, including sections 15, 19, and 22(2) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, and sections 8 and 9 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, IV of 1956, as well as Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The petitioner sought to contest the eviction order, arguing that the leave application was filed with a one-day delay, thereby violating the statutory timeframe. Conversely, the respondent’s counsel argued that the first day should be excluded in the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1908, referencing section 12, which aligns with the provisions of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act. The court concluded that the Limitation Act, 1908, was not applicable to rent matters as the Punjab Rented Premises Act provided its own timeframe for proceedings. Furthermore, the court held that section 8 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, which excludes the first day in calculating the limitation period, was applicable. Consequently, the tenant's leave application to contest the ejectment petion was deemed timely and within the statutory period. The court dismissed the petition due to lack of merits, upholding the eviction order based on the statutory interpretations and the timely filing of the leave application. This case underscores the importance of adhering to specific statutory timeframes provided within special laws over general limitation statutes and highlights the judicial interpretation of limitation periods in the context of rental disputes. The decision reinforces the autonomy of specialized laws in governing procedural timelines and provides a precedent for future cases involving contested eviction petitions and the applicability of limitation laws within special legislative frameworks. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Rent Controller,
Special Judge Rent
|
| Judges |
SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM ROZA SHAMSI, J
|
| Lawyers |
Muzammil Akhtar Shabbir,
M. Waheed Hassan
|
| Petitioners |
ABDUL KARIM
|
| Respondents |
SHAKEEL AHMAD and others
|
| Citations |
2012 SLD 440,
2012 CLC 261
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009,
West Pakistan General Clauses Act, IV of 1956,
Constitution of Pakistan
|
| Sections |
15,
19,
22(2),
8,
9,
Art.199
|