Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 21 of 1954‑55, decided on 1st March, 1956, District Multan.

----

----Ejectment‑Default in payment of rent during Pendency of ejectment proceedings‑Not a ground for ejectment‑ Assistant Collector does not act as Revenue Court but as Revenue Officer‑Regular pleadings or issues not neces sary‑Payment of rent to one landlord‑Sufficient discharge- Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950), S. 3.

Amjad Hussain for Karam Elahi Chohan for Petitioners.

This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, dated 31^st August, 1955, by which he maintained the order of the Collector, Multan District, dated 7th September, 1954, declin ing to eject the respondent‑tenant, Hassan Bakhsh and restoring tenancy to him under the petitioner‑landlords, Nabi Bakhsh etc. The facts briefly are that Nabi Bakhsh and Ahmad Bakhsh petitioners who claim to be landlords of the land concerned in these proceedings, applied for ejectment of their tenant Hassan Bakhsh. The main ground taken up was that Hassan Bakhsh bad not paid the landlord's share of batai for kharif, 1953. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade accepted the application and ejected the tenant. The Collector interfered in appeal on the ground that batai upto Kharif, 1953, had admittedly been paid and no default had occurred. The Commissioner maintained the order of the Collector. The landlords have come up in revision and it is urged that‑

(a) subsequent defaults in payment of batai during the course of ejectment proceedings should have been taken into consideration ;

(b) the regular procedure as laid down in the Civil P. C. was not followed, and

(c) in any case payment of landlord's share to one of the landlords was collusive in character and should not be considered sufficient discharge.

No ruling of the Financial Commissioners or any of the Civil Courts has been produced before me to show that default by a tenant during the course of ejectment proceedings should also be considered and the tenant ejected on the strength of these defaults. As regards the question of procedure it is admittedly a Revenue Officer's case and not a Revenue Court's case, it is only the latter category of cases which require that the parties should file regular pleadings so that issues are framed, on which evidence taken and findings then given on the issues. There is no evidence of collusive payment to anyone of the landlords and in the absence of collusion and fraud payment to one of them is considered sufficient discharge under the law. The other co‑share landlords could have been made pro forma respondents in the ejectment application but this was never done on the ground that the petitioners were in hissedari possession of the tenancy. I thus do not consider any of these arguments to be tenable and maintain the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, As a result the revision petition stands dismissed.

Announced.

A. H. Petition 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.