NISSAR AHMAD Vs. BASHIR MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm No.6689-C of 2015 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 329 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) The learned counsel for the defendant also points out that the tenant had not actually proved the payment of rent to the landlord and the Punjab Tenancy Act requires a tenant to be a person who ought to have made the payment of rent. There was no proof of payment of rent, according to the counsel. The further argument was that the plaintiff himself was not competent to file a suit and that the property had been taken only on lease by the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff cannot come by possession by mere affidavit from the father unless the change of tenancy had been modified with the concurrence of the landlord. There was no such concurrence. I reject both these arguments as untenable. As regards the actual payment of rent, Section 4(5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act contemplates the tenant as a person, who shall be liable to pay rent.