Law: Punjab Tenancy Act, (XVI of 1887)

Section: 77

Punjab Tenancy Act (XVl of 11187)--- ----S. 77---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164---Suits for ejectment of tenant and for recovery of produce---Landlord's suit for ejectment was dismissed by Trial Court, but decreed in appeal---Case was remanded by Additional Commissioner on the pica that suit for recovery of produce and ejectment suit be decided simultaneously---Collector, on remand again decided suits in landlord's favour---Additional Commissioner again remanded the case for fresh decision with observation that earlier directions of Court were not carried out in letter and spirit---Order of remand assailed in revision---Relationship amongst parties already stood established by the order of Collector---Record showed that Collector complied with directions contained in remand order and both the cases were decided simultaneously---Fact that decree was not drawn up by Collector on that very date was immaterial and omission was voidable which could not be allowed to stand in the way of dispensing justice---Additional Commissioner thus erred in holding that earlier directions of his Court were not complied with---In absence of material irregularity, Additional Commissioner was not justified to open another gate of litigation by remanding the case---Impugned order being bad in law, was not sustainable and was set aside by Board of Revenue in revision. Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Malik Yousaf Farooq for Respondent. ORDER The status of the petitioner to the suit land is that of a landlord whereas the respondent is a tenant. The petitioner filed suit for ejectment against the respondent on the; ground of default in payment of share of produce. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 8-1-1987. The petitioner preferred, an appeal, before the AC/Collector, who vide his order dated 30-1-1988 accepted the appeal on the ground that relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant stood proved and the respondent/tenant has not been able to produce any documentary proof to the effect that rent is being paid by him to the petitioner. Respondent, challenged that order before the Additional Commissioner who vide his order of…