Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 48 of 1944‑45, from the order of Commissioner, Lahore ‑Division dated 29th May 1945, decided on 29th July 1948.

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

, S. 5‑Commissioner entertaining appeal time‑barred‑Appeal should have been rejected summarily, 1944 L L T p. 5 followed.

(b) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)

, S. 110 (1) (b)‑In. applicable to a case where relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist at the time of the execution of the deed.

Where a deed was executed on 10th March, 1930 and the tenancy was to commence according to the term of the deed from June 1930, do relationship of landlord and tenant existed at the time of the execu tion of the deed and as such the provisions of section 110 (1) (b) of the Punjab Tenancy Act were inapplicable to the case.

F. M. Anwari for the Petitioner.

The respondent served by substituted service but absent.

This is a petition for revision of the order of the Commissioner Lahore Division, dated 29th May, 1945, confirming the order of this Collector, Lahore, dated 20 December 1942. The Collector had dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner against the order of the Assistant Collector 1st grade, Lahore, dated 29 June 1942, whereby Rs. 303/12/‑ were allowed to the petitioner as compensation for improvement and distur bance.

The petitioner took certain land on lease from the respondent for a period of tan years. The respondent got hint ejected on the expiry of that period. The petitioner brought a suit for compensation for disturbance and improve ment in the court of the Assistant Collector Ist grade, who awarded him Rs. 303/12/- as compensation. The petitioner appealed to the Collector for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The Collector not only dismissed the appeal but held that as no relationship of landlord and tenant existed at the time the parties entered into the lease, section 110 of the Tenancy Act did not apply and the appellant was not entitled to compensation at all. The petitioner filed a second appeal to the Commissioner which was dismissed.

I find from the learned Commissioner's order that lie entertained the petitioner's appeal although it was time‑barred. The learned Commissioner waived the period of limitation tinder section 5 of the Limitation Act, although he was not competent to do so, in view of the principle laid down in 1944 L L T page 5. The appeal before the Commissioner should have been rejected summarily as time‑barred.

On merits as well I find no grounds to interfere. The deed was executed on 10 March 1930 and the tenancy was to commence according to the terms of the deed from June 1930. Obviously, therefore, no relationship of landlord and tenant existed at the time of the execution of the deed and as such the provisions of section 110 (1) (b) of the Punjab Tenancy Act were inapplicable to the case.

A.H. Revision rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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