| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 1966 1961 SLD 1966 = 1961 PLD 105 |
West Pakistan
Revision Side No. 455 of 1960-61, decided on 19th September 196', District Mianwali.
Presented By: A. M. Khan Leghari, Mem5er Board of Revenue,
Akhtar Ahm2d Shah for Petitioner.
Revision Side No. 455 of 1960-61, decided on 19th September 196', District Mianwali.
Presented By: A. M. Khan Leghari, Mem5er Board of Revenue,
Akhtar Ahm2d Shah for Petitioner.
ALI -Petitioner
VERSUS
KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950
Section:
Landlord and tenant Tenant at will-Ejectment-Rent recovered with help of police-Terms of tenancy not breached Ejectment perverse and unreasonable-Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIIl of 1950), S. 3 (1). ORDER This is a revision petition from the order of Commissioner, Surgodh a Division, dated 4-7-1961, whereby he held the ejectment of the present respondents as perverse, set aside the appellate order dated 15-10-1960 of the S. D. O. (Collector) Bhakkar, and ordered the restoration of the tenancy from which the present respondents had been ejected. The facts briefly are that the petitioner had applied for ejectment of the respondents who were his tenants-at-will under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act X111 of 1950. The Assistant Collector, 11 O1Vade, Bhakkar, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had admitted that they have been paid all rents due up-to-date by the respondents. On appeal, S. D. O., Bhakkar, exercising powers of Collector, found that the respondents had, on their own admissions, been convicted under section 188 of P. P. C. for removing the crop from the threshing floor, without payment of rent. This fact and the petitioner's Mukhtar's statement in the Lower Court "that batai had to be recovered from the respondents generally through police" showed that they were reluctant to give the batai rents. He therefore, accepted the appeal and ordered their ejectment. On further appeal the learned Commissioner held these findings to be "not only unreason able and perverse, but also running counter to what has been brought on the file." I find myself in agreement with this verdict. I feel that the main reason for the wrong decision by the Collector is the fact that he did not refer to the law governing cases of this kind, for, if he had one so, I am sure, he would have taken pains to see that the facts before him came within its ambit, before ordering ejectment. Section 3 (1) (i) of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act XIII of 1950, which contains the law applicable to this…