Law: Punjab Tenancy Act, (XVI of 1887)

Section:

(a) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)-----   ----S. 77-Suit for eject ment on ground of non-payment of rent-Tenant alleging payment by M. O.-Landlord's denial-Tenant should prove payment by Producing official of postal department or some other direct evidence.   (b) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)-----   ----Ss. 84 & 77-Suit for ejectment on grounds of non-payment of rent and destroying garden-Concurrent finding of fact-Case not falling under provisions of S. 115, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-No inter ference in revision.     ORDER   A suit for ejectment was brought by the respondent-landlords against the petitioner who is their tenant-at-will from a piece of land measuring 11 Kanals and 9 Marlas situated in village Sanda Kalan. Ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenants had failed to pay rent from 1948 to 1959 and were thus in arrears to the exent of Rs. 77,000 ; further that the land had not been properly cultivated. In support of the latter contention it was alleged that a garden which was situated in the land had been ruined by the petitioners during the course of the tenancy. The trial Court found that the tenants who had been paying cash rent had not paid rent for the period in question ; further that the fruit trees of the garden as alleged had dried up due to lack of care on the tenants' part. A decree for ejectment was accordingly passed. The Collector maintained this decree in appeal and a revision filed with the Additional Commissioner also failed. A second revision has now been preferred.   Two grounds have been taken up before me and both of them relate to questions of fact: Firstly, that the tenants had not made default in payment of rent and secondly, that the trial Court had erred in placing the onus of proof on the tenant regarding his alleged carelessness in respect of the garden. As regards the first point stress is laid on the observation made by the Courts below that as there was a dispute between the tenant and the landlords the tenant should have had recourse to the provisions of section 31 of the Tenancy Act. Indeed it is not obligatory on the…