Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 212 of 1965‑66, decided on 15th January 1966.

Landlord and tenant ‑ Ejectment of tenant can be sought either by suit under S. 77, Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) or by application under S. 3, Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950).

S. 3‑Arrears of rent, recovery of‑No application can be made under S. 3‑Provision, however, does not bar institu tion of suit in Revenue Court for arrears of rent and ejectment of tenant under S. 77, Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887).

Shaikh Muhammad Nazir for Petitioner.

Hafiz Obaidullah for Respondents.

This is a second revision filed against an order dated 5^th of August 1965, passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi whereby the revision preferred by the respondents was accepted.

The facts of the case are that the respondents brought a suit for arrears of rent and for ejectment of the petitioner. The Assistant Collector granted a decree of Rs. 20 as arrears of rent, but rejected the suit so far as ejectment was concerned. The respondents filed an appeal before the Collector, who dismissed it. They then went in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who maintained the order about the decree of rent, but also ordered the ejectment of petitioner. Hence this second revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has referred me to section 7 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950 and has said that, "because an application for ejectment could be made to a revenue officer under section 3 (ii) of the said Act, no suit could lie before Revenue Court. I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention. Section 3(i) is the basic law. When a tenant is liable for ejectment on any of the grounds in this subsection, there are two courses open. Either an application for ejectment can be made to a revenue officer or a suit can be brought under section 77. The intention of the 1950 Act was to give protection to the tenants, but at the same time, it devised a machinery by which a quicker ejectment of the tenants could be effected if they were liable to ejectment. Filing a suit for ejectment is a greater protection to the tenant and it cannot, therefore, be assumed that, by giving a smaller protection to the tenant, the Legislature intended to take away a greater protection.

Again in this case, I find that the suit was for the arrears of rent as well as for the ejectment of a tenant. No application under section 3 of the 1950 Act could be made to revenue officer for arrears of rent and, therefore, the only course possible was to file a suit under section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

If the suggestion by the learned counsel for the petitioner was to be accepted, it would be necessary to first get a decree of rent under section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and then makes an application under section 3 (ii) of the 1950 Act to a revenue officer for the ejectment of a tenant. This cannot be taken to be the intention of the Legislature. It is, therefore, obvious that section 3 of the 1950 Act does not bar the institution of suits in revenue Courts for the arrears of rent and ejectment of tenant under section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

In these circumstances, I see no justification for any inter ference. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby.

K. M. A. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.