Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 3 of 1956‑57, decided on 5th April 1957 and 1st June 1957, District Multan.

S. 3‑--Ejectment of tenant‑Revision‑Properly leased out to others by landlord‑--Present tenants (who hold lands subject to rights of old tenants) should be heard before passing order restoring tenancies to old tenants who have been ejected.

--

Document with‑held by party---Oral allega tion of party's witnesses is worthless.

S. 50--‑Does not apply where ejectment took place by order of Revenue Officer.

The provisions of section 50 do not apply in cases where ejectment took place by the order of a Revenue Officer and in any case those provisions do not limit the extent to which the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue extends.

C. R. Aslam and Nur Muhammad Chuhan for Petitioner.

Abdur Rahim, Ghulam Ali Alvi and Ghulam Nabi for Res pondent No. 1.

--(5‑4‑1957).‑This order will relate to six cases of Revision Nos. 3 6, 11 and 12 of 1956‑57.

The ejectment of the petitioners was ordered by the Assistant Collector on the basis of a finding that the cultivation of the tenancies had not been carried out by them "in accordance with the terms" of those tenancies. The evidence on the subject consisted of oral statements suggesting that the petitioners had used particular acres of land against the wishes of the landlord's farm manager. The fact that the farm manager's order was binding on such a point has not been proved. It does, therefore, appear to me that the finding which was recorded against the petitioners on this subject was unjustified.

The essential result emanating from my opinion recorded above is that the petitioners are entitled to be put back In possession so that an error which has been committed by the Assistant Collector should be corrected by me in revision. I, however, notice that the landlord has in the mean‑time found other tenants instead of the petitioners in these six) cases. I would like to hear those new tenants before passing an order restoring the tenancies to the present petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners should give me a statement showing the names of the tenants in the six cases and notices should issue to those tenants for 1‑6‑57.

During the course of arguments to‑day, it transpired that the landlord association in this case was in possession of actual Patas which had been thumb‑marked by the petitioners for the year 1955‑56. These Patas were never produced before the Assistant Collector. The conditions contained in the Patas cannot be said to have been proved. In fact, the non‑production of the Patas would make the oral allegations of the landlord's witnesses worthless in the eyes of law. The landlord was perhaps withholding the Patas intentionally, because if the documents were produced, the Assistant Collector would have been justified in declaring that the petitioners were tenants holding their tenancies for a fixed period and that the procedure prescribed in the Punjab Projection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950, could not be rightly applied to them. The wish of the landlord, to oust such tenants from their tenancies could be achieved only by lodging regular suits in the Revenue Courts of Assistant Collectors. It is noteworthy that the notices to the petitioners were given in November 1955, whereas the tenancies were to continue till June 1956.

(1‑6‑1957)‑This order will be read in continuation of my order dated 5‑4‑57 and will apply to all the six cases of Revision Nos. 3‑6, 11 and 12 of 1956‑57.

The tenants‑respondents say

(1) that they will be without any livelihood if they are ousted from these lands, and

(2) that they have got some crops standing in respect of the coming Kharif.

Objection No. 1 is something on which I need not give a decision. If they stepped into these lands after the order ejecting the petitioners was passed by the Assistant Collector, they must hold the lands subject to the rights of the petitioners.

Regarding objection No. (2), my decision is that when posses sion is taken away from these respondents‑tenants and restored to the petitioners, compensation for standing crops should be assessed by the Assistant Collector I grade and this compensation will be payable by the petitioners to the respondents‑tenants in respect of the respective squares.

Counsel for the respondent association have drawn my attention to section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, which provides that a tenant unlawfully ejected can seek a restoration within a limited time by putting in a regular suit in a Revenue Court. The provisions of this section do not apply in cases where ejectment took place by the order of a Revenue Officer and in any case those provisions do not limit the extent to which the revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue extends.

The procedure of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy ACT (1950), was followed in these cases and I have already held that the finding adverse to the petitioners was not justified. The order of ejectment passed on that finding was, therefore, unjustified and deserves to be cancelled. That order was in fact executed and I want to undo the effect of that execution in order to correct the position. I, therefore, direct that the petitioners should be put back in possession as an immediate measure before the 15th June 1957. Orders to this effect should be issued to the subordinate Revenue Officers urgently.

The point to which I referred in the last paragraph of my order dated 5‑4‑57 was mentioned incidentally only. The parties did not allege before the Assistant Collector that the pro cedure of the said Act of 1950 could not be applied in these six cases. In fact, the position, as has appeared during arguments before me, is that the said Act was not applicable because the tenants were holding land for a fixed term and the ejectment by summary procedure was sought during the period of the tenancy. The counsel for the respondent association now mentions that the ejectment of the petitioners in fact took place after the term of their tenancy had expired. This also does not affect my revisional jurisdiction, because the actual ejectment of the petitioners was by an order passed by a Revenue Officer. The land was not given up by the petitioners of their own accord.

In the above circumstances, the six petitions for revision will be considered to have been accepted to the extent indicated above.

K. M. A Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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