Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 2 of 1964‑65, decided on 6th May 1965.
------
------S. 49(3) (k)‑Land lord and tenant‑Tenants paying rent to allottee landlord who had given land on lease for 4 years, to petitioner by registered lease deed which had not been acted upon in revenue record‑Petitioner, held, had no remedy against tenants under Act.
Dost Muhammad Kamil for Petitioner.
Muhammad Jamshed Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Abdul Majid Advocate for the Legal Representative:
This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 30th of March 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
The facts of the case are that the land in dispute was evacuee property which was allotted to one Baqir Ali Shah, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were tenants of the non‑Muslim owners but, after the land had been allotted to Baqir Ali Shah, they continued to cultivate the land and paid rent to Baqir Ali Shah. The petitioner alleged that, by means of a registered deed, Baqir Ali Shah gave lease of the land in dispute from 1st January 1959 to 31st of December 1962. Rs. 300 were paid to Baqir Ali Shah but the lease was never acted upon in the revenue records. The petitioner brought a suit for recovery of rent and ejectment of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before the Additional Revenue Assistant which was dismissed, He then went in appeal to the Collector but it was also rejected He then filed a. revision before the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, and he passed the orders mentioned above. Hence this second revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He is anxious to get back Rs. 300 which were paid to Baqir Ali Shah. I am afraid, recovery of such amount cannot be made under the Punjab Tenancy Act. Admittedly respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are tenants is the cultivating possession of the land in dispute. They were tenants under Baqir Ali Shah to whom they paid the rent and was admitted to have been received by Baqir Ali Shah. The Act of 1950 cannot help the petitioner. He can seek such legal remedy as is otherwise legaly permissible.
In these circumstances, there is no justification for any inter ference. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
A. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer