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. 1145 of 1963‑64, decided on 29th October 1964.
, S. 77‑Suit for recovery of rent‑Can be filed by landlord owning land less than 25 acres.
Sh. Zahoor‑ul‑Haq for Petitioner.
Ch. Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent.
This is a second revision filed against an order, dated the 18th of December 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, who while exercising the powers of a Commissioner rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner.
The facts of the case are that respondent brought a suit for the recovery of rent and for ejectment of the petitioner. The suit was decreed. The petitioner went in appeal to the Collector, but it was rejected. He then filed a revision but it was dismissed as mentioned above. Hence this second revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same objections as were raised before the learned Collector, namely, that the suit was not entertainable under section 77 of the Tenancy Act and it should have been brought under the protection of Tenancy Rights Act of 1950. This question was examined by the learned Collector as well as the learned Commissioner at length. Both have relied on P L D 1952 Pb. (Rev.) 17. According to this ruling the right of an owner having less than 25 acres in his cultivation are not affected by the protection of Tenancy Rights Act of 1950. The suit was, there fore, entertainable under section 77. In these circumstances I do not find any justification for interference on this account.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred me to P L D 1956 Pb. (Rev.) 17 and has pointed out that while the revision against an interim order of the Assistant Collector Id was pending before the Collector, the Assistant Collector decided the case on merits. In the first instance it was a revision against an interim order, and, in the second, no stay order was issued by the learned Collector. The Assistant Collector was, therefore, perfectly justified in deciding the case on merits.
In these circumstances the second revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer