Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 73 of 1961‑62, decided on 1st November 1962, District Sialkot.

S. d‑Ejectment carried out‑Ejectment order set aside in appeal‑Restoration of possession‑Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 50‑Notice of ejectment to be issued before 15th day of November in any year.

Ghulam Ali Alvi for Petitioner.

This is a case under the Tenancy Act in which the respondent was ejected following an application purported to have been made under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act though originally ejectment was sought under section 7 (11) (b) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act of 1956. Notice was served on the respondent admittedly after the 15th of November which is contrary to the provisions contained in the proviso to subsection (3) of section 3 of the Act. Nevertheless the respondent was ejected. The Collector set aside the order in appeal and the learned Additional Commissioner has maintained this order in revision. A second revision has now been preferred.

Only two arguments have been taken up before me; the first of these is that a notice can also be served after the 15th of Novem ber provided ejectment takes place in the following year. This contention is not borne out by the proviso to subsection (3) of section 3 of the Act which definitely states that "no notice shall be served after the 15th day of November in any year". The proper course for the landlord in this case would be to apply again in the succeeding year and not merely rely on the applica tion already made in the preceding year. The second point that has been urged is that the learned Additional Commissioner was not competent to restore possession of the land as the proper, remedy for wrongful dispossession lies under section 50 of the Tenancy Act by bringing a suit. This section however specifically states that it applies to ejectments which have taken place under certain specific circumstances i.e., dispossession without consent otherwise than an execution of a decree or in pursuance of an order under sections 44 and 45 of the Act. Section 50 has not been amended so as to include ejectments under the Punjab Pro tection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act within its scope. It would be contrary to the principles of justice that an appellate or revisional authority be incompetent to restore the position which existed before the lower Courts stepped in and changed it in a manner which is held to be wrong and illegal. The provisions of section 84 (5) of the Act also permit the revisional authority to pass such order as he thinks fit. I would for the above reasons decline to interfere in the decision arrived at by the learned Additional Commissioner and reject the revision petition.

K. M. A. Petition 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.