Law: Punjab Tenancy Act, (XVI of 1887)

Section:

(a) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)----   -----Ss. 17 & 77-Suit for ejectment on ground of non-payment of rent Plaintiff not bound to ask also for decree for rent-Liability to pay rent on tenant Default does not mean wilful default-Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950), S. 3-Martial Law Regulation No. 64, para. 26.   (b) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)------   ----S. 84-Revision-- Competent against order passed by Commissioner in revisionBoard of Revenue has controlling and supervisory powers under S. 84.   (c) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)-----   ----S. 84-Interpretation of law resulting in miscarriage of justice-Interference Justified.     ORDER   This order will dispose of five Revision Petitions Nos. 10 to 14 of 1961-62.   The facts briefly are that the petitioner filed five suits against various respondents for their ejectment on the ground of non payment of rent. The trial Court's finding was that the rent had not been paid and ejectment of respondents was decreed. In appeal the Collector maintained this order. The Additional Commissioner intervened in revision and on a misreading of the law as will be presently shown held that if there was a dispute regarding payment of rent it was for the landlord to seek his remedy under section 17 of the Tenancy Act. The evidence was that the tenants were prepared to pay rent at the rate of 2/5th of the produce which is in keeping with the provisions of section 15 (a) of the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act of 1952 but the landlord was claiming rent at batai. It needs no argument to show that the liability to pay rent is on the tenant and it would normally be for him to seek the assistance of the legal provision of section 17 of the Tenancy Act. I would no subscribe to the proposition of the learned Additional Commissioner that the landlord should have proceeded under the provision of this section.   The learned Additional Commissioner has also questioned the findings of fact by the two lower Courts regarding actual payment of rent. His view was that in any case there was no wilful default on the part of the petitioners…