Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 111 of 1959‑60, decided on 29th March 1961, District Hazara.

‑Not retrospective‑Suit filed before enforcement of Regulation‑Can be decreed by Court.

Abdur Rashid for Petitioners.

Dr. Abdur Rahim for Respondent.

The facts of the case briefly are that Habib Khan respondent- landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioners tenants from the land in dispute in the Court of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Mansehra. The reason given for ejectment was that the tenants were in arrears of rent and were causing trouble in payment thereof. The petitioners contested the suit and claimed occupancy rights; in any case compensation for improvements effected by them during the course of the tenancy. A decree for ejectment was passed on payment of Rs. 4,084 as compensation for improvements. Two separate appeals were filed by the parties before the Collector who rejected the appeal of the tenants but partly accepted the appeal of the respondents and reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,150. The tenants then lodged a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, again on the same pleas that they were occupancy tenants and had been paying rent regularly. An additional plea was also raised: namely that in the Meanwhile Martial Law Regulation No. 64 had come into operation and a tenant could not be ejected unless a case for non‑payment of rent had been established against him. The learned Additional Commissioner held that the Martial Law Regulation in question did not have a retrospective effect as the suit had been instituted and decided before its coming into force. Regarding the question of non‑payment of rent: though a specific issue had not been framed by the trial Court, the parties had led evidence on this point which had been gone into and discussed at considerable length. As a result of non‑payment of rent was clearly established and a finding accordingly given by the trial Court. The appeal for these reasons was rejected. A revision application has now been filed.

The main argument that has been taken up is that provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 stand in the way of the decree which thereby has been rendered inoperative. That may be so. It is not the execution of the decree which is under consideration before me but the fact whether the decree could be passed in the circumstances of the case. The suit was admittedly instituted before the operation of the Martial Law Regulation in question and was also decreed by the trial Court. This Regulation nowhere lays down that it will have retrospective effect and merely lays down that such decrees will become inoperative. In these circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the views expressed by the learned Additional Commissioner and reject this revision petition. The question whether the decree can be enforced or not can be taken up when execution proceedings are instituted by the respondent‑landlord.

K. M. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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