Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 17

Law: Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950)

Section: 3(S)

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),   O. V, r. 17-Refusal to accept service-Summons may be affixed to outer door of dwelling house.   (b) Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950),   S. 3 (S)-Compensation not determined by Revenue Officer in ex-parte ejectment order-Tenant could be ejected without payment of compensation.  ORDER   There are four revision petitions against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Multan refusing to entertain and proceed with the revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the order of the Collector, Multan, dated 21-8-57 by which he upheld the order of the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Burewala, directing the ejectment of petitioners from the land in question.   I have heard Kh. Abdur Rahim, Advocate with Mr. Ghulam Ali Alvi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Amin Advocate for the respondent.   The facts of the case are that the petitioners held the land in dispute under the respondent as tenants. The respondent filed an application under section 3 of Act XIII of 1950 before the Assistant Collector II Grade, Burewala, for the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that they had failed to cultivate the land in accor dance with the customary manner of cultivation and had also failed to pay rent in accordance with the terms of the tenancy. This application was filed on 13-11-56 and on the same day issue of notices to the tenants was ordered by the Court. On 14-11-56, the process-server reported that he had gone to the village but the tenants had refused to accept service. He had, therefore pasted a copy of the notice on their houses. On 15-11-56 ex-parte proceed ings were ordered against the tenants and after recording the evidence of the landlord and his witnesses the ejectment of the petitioners was ordered. An appeal was filed against this order before the Collector and he held that there was nothing to show that the notices of ejectment had not been validly served on the tenants and that it was proved that they had refused to accept service and there was nothing on the record to support the conten tion of the appellants that they had been…