Ejectment Petition Under Section 19 of Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009

Ejectment Petition Under Section 19 of Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009
Ejectment Petition No: /2020
In Re:
Ashger Ali Malik son of Mazhar Ali Malik R/O 52-Zaildar Road Lahore
Petitioner
VERSES
Saif-ur-Rehman Son of Abdul Hameed R/o 80-D New Muslim Town Lahore
Respondent
EJECTMENT PETITION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE PUNJAB RENTED PREMISES ACT 2009
Respectfully Sheweth,
1.That the addresses of the parties are correct for summoning/notices for this Honorable Court.
2.That the brief facts leading to file the present ejectment petition are that the petitioner along with his brother purchased a property measuring 14-Marla 112-Sqft. Situated in Khata No. 9094, Khasra Mo. 3456 situated at Mouza Mozang Tehsil Cantt Lahore to extent the ½ share of along with one Mst. Kauser Perveen wife of Shaukat Ali through registered sale deed No. 59023 Book No. 897 Volume No. 23 Dated 21.02.2003 registered with Sub-Registrar Data Ganj Buksh Town, Lahore. The said Mst. Kauser Perveen was owner to the extent of ½ shares in the said property through the said registered sale deed. Copy of sale deed is attached for king perusal of this Honorable Court.
3.That it is pertinent to mentioned here that the petitioner along with hi brothers subsequently purchased 3-Marlas 115-Sqft. Out of the share of the Mst. Kauser Perveen wife of Muhammad against the total consideration amount of Rs. 27,00,000/- through the registered sale deed No. 2542 Book No. 349 Volume No. 56 Dated 24.08.2005 registered with Sub-Registrar Data Gunj Buksh Town Lahore.
4.That the property owned by the petitioner is constructed property the petitioner is running his own business in the said property under the name of Pakpattan Motors since its purchased. The petitioner along with the previous owner namely Kauser Perveen who sold her share to the petitioner and after selling her share to the petitioner remained owner only to the extent of 3-Marlas 116-Sqft. Partitioned the said property according to the shares of the parties.
5.That after division of the said property to access the ground floor the petitioner constructed three grill shatters of steel col. Opening in the property owned and possessed by the present petitioner, whereas Mst. Kauser Parveen constructed 4th grill shatters of steel col. Opening into the property owned by the said Mst. Kauser Parveen to the extent her share.
6.That thereafter the basement of the said property having grill rolling gate was rented out jointly by the petitioner and said Mst. Karuser Parveen to the respondents through an oral tenancy agreement in the month of February, 2009 for the period of five years against a total monthly rent of Rs. 60,000/- in presence of witnesses out of which the share of the petitioner was Rs. 45,000/- and the share of said Mst. Kauser Parveen was Rs. 15,000/- copy of site plan without scale is attached herewith for the kind perusal of this Honorable Court.
7.That the said Kauser Parveen sold her share in the above said property to the respondents vide sale deed documents No. 7452 Book No. 254 Volume 32 Dated 06.01.2010 registered with Sub-Registrar Data Gunj Buksh Town Lahore which is situated to the western side of the property owned by the petitioner by deviating her words and deeds who had promised the petitioner to sell her remaining share to the petitioner.
8.That the respondents after purchasing the remaining share of the said Mst. Kauser Parveen continued the under to the extent of property owned by the petitioner under their use and occupation, the monthly rent was settled to the tune of Rs. 52,500/- per month the respondents started paying the monthly rent to the petitioner but in the month of May, 2014 stopped the payment of monthly rent of disputed property to the petitioner.
9.That the respondents paid the monthly rent to the petitioner till May, 2014 and thereafter willfully and deliberately stopped the payment of monthly rent to the petitioner and by this way have become the willful defaulter in the payment of monthly rent and an amount of Rs. 19,45,177/- after annual increment of 10% is outstanding against the respondents as arrears of monthly rent.
10.That the petitioner seeks ejectment of the respondents on the following amongst other.
GROUNDS:
1.That the respondents have neither paid nor tendered the rent from May, 2014 to the petitioner. The rent of the disputed property was Rs. 52,500/- in the year of 2014 and after 10% annual increment the monthly rent is enhanced to tune of Rs. 57,560/- in the year of 2015 whereas after 10% annual increment the monthly rent enhanced to the tune of Rs. 63,520/- in the year of 2016 and now by this way have become the willful defaulter in the payment of monthly rent and an amount of Rs. 19,45,177/- is outstanding against the respondents as arrears of monthly rent.
2.That the petitioner does not want to continue the tenancy, the respondents have no legal justification to retain the possession of the disputed property after the expiry of the period of tenancy as well as being willful defaulter.
3.That the respondents after the expiry of the agree period of tenancy between the parties does not want to continue the same.
4.That the respondents have violated the terms and conditions of the tenancy, hence are liable to be ejected from the rented premises.
5.That the respondents have also made illegal and unjustifiable structural changed in the rented premises without prior of the petitioner.
6.That the respondents are also not paying the utility bills within time.
7.That the petitioner many a times himself and through the respectable of the locality soon after the respondents stop the monthly rent approached the respondents and requested the respondents to vacate the rented premises owned by the petitioner and to handover its vacant possession to the petitioner of the property under question i.e. the basement and also to pay the arrears of rent as well as monthly rent due towards the respondents, the respondents in presence of marginal witnesses acknowledged to vacate the rented premises and to pay the arrears of rent and in several meeting held by the petitioner with the respondents in presence of respectable of the locality and witnesses gained time to hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises to the petitioner and to pay the monthly rent after opening independent entrance into the property owned by the respondents to the extent of their share but now a few days ago the respondents has flatly to vacate the rented premises as well as to pay the arrears of monthly rent to the petitioner, hence this petition.
8.That the cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents firstly in the month of May, 2014 when the respondents stopped the payment of monthly rent and lastly a few days ago when the respondents refused to hand over the possession of the rented premises to the petitioner as well as to pay the arrears of rent, the cause of action is still continuing.
9.That the suit property is situated at Lahore and parties are also residing at Lahore, hence this Hon’able court has got jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
10.That the requisite court fee of Rs. 15/- has been affixed on the ejectment petition.
PRAYER
In the view of above submission, it is prayed that this Hon’able Court the present ejectment petition of the petitioner may very kindly be accepted with costs and the respondents may very kindly be ejected from the rented premises and be directed to handover the vacant possession of the said property in dispute to the petitioner.
It is further prayed that respondent may very kindly be directed to deposit the arrears of rent from the month of May, 2014 total amounting to Rs. 19,45,177/- in the Government Treasury as well as the future rent till the final disposal of the ejectment petition.
Any other relief which this Hon’able Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded.

PETITIONER
Through
CH. MUHAMMAD SHAHID BHALLI
Advocate High Court
Mob: 0301-6001125
VERIFICATION:
Verified on oath at Lahore, this 10th day of March 2019 that the contents of the above plaint from Paras 1 to 9 are true and correct to the best of knowledge and rest of the paras 10 to 12 correct to the best of my information and belief.
PLAINTIFF