Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 1968 1961 SLD 1968 = 1961 PLD 110
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 333 of 1956, decided on 19th May 1961.
Presented By: M. R. Kayani, C. J. and Habibullah Khan, J
Peer Bakhsh Khan for Appellants.   Abdul Wahab Khan and Abdul Wahid for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 8.   Fazal Mahmud Khan for
Respondent No. 9.  

UMAR SAID AND OTHERS-Defendant-Appellants  

VERSUS

  FAIZ MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS Plaintiff-Respondents

Law: North West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, (XXV of 1950)

Section:

  Adverse possession----Occupancy tenancy is subject to adverse possession. An occupancy tenancy is subject to adverse possession as effectively as proprietary holding, and an occupancy tenant equally with a proprietor loses his right if adverse possession operates against him for over twelve years.   N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950)---Ss. 4 & 4-A Words "occupies land as such"-Meaning-Occupancy tenant not entitled to get possession from trespasser-Not deemed to 'be occupancy tenant under Ss. 4 & 4-A, Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 114.   The words "occupies land as such" necessarily do not mean physical occupation, for a tenant may be in constructive posses sion through a tenant-at-will. In the same way, he may have been thrown .out of possession by some illegal process, but if he has time to avail of legal process to restore himself to possession, whether actual or constructive, he should be allowed to make use of that remedy. If, however, he has allowed time to run against him, then N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950, has not the effect of reviving a claim which has been extinguished.   The Legislature could not have intended to confer upon the tenants a right which had become non-existent. There was con sequently no fear of any absurd results. The words "occupies' land as such" have been used no less than four times in sections 4 and 4-A and should not be regarded as a mere superfluity, because they can be correctly interpreted.   If the occupancy right existed at the commencement of the amending Act which added Ss. 4 and 4-A to the main Act it had to be changed into ownership.   If a suit for possession has been instituted against a tres passer, it cannot be argued, before the termination of such a suit, that the occupancy tenancy, had ceased to exist. The correct view would be that if there is any such contest between the occupancy tenant and the trespasser, then before section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 or sections 4 and 4-A of the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950 are brought into play, the contest must have been decided. If the result of the contest is to oust the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register