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

Section: 3

  Revision - Finding of fact given by Revenue Officers below-Cannot be interfered with in second revision.   Ejectment-Landlord and tenant-Application for ejectment under S. 3, Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950)-Ejectment can only be on grounds mentioned in S. 3.     ORDER   This order will dispose of the following seven revisions:----   Muhammad Bakhsh v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1348 of 1964-65). Ranjha v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1349 of 1964-65). Alam Sher v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1350 of 1964-65). Muhammad Bakhsh v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1351 of 1964-65). Imam Bakhsh v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1352 6f 1964-65). Allah Bakhsh v. Col. J. J. V. Chunigham (Revision No. 1353 of 1964-65). Hayat v. Col. J. J. V, Chunipgham (Revision No. 1354 of 1904-65), '   These seven revisions have been filed against orders dated the 10th of June 1965, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the revisions preferred by the petitioners were rejected.   The facts of all these cases are that the respondents put an application under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Resto ration of the Tenancy Rights Act XIII of 1950 and section 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The Revenue Officer issued notices under section 3 of the Act of 1950 and further proceedings were taken under that section only. No notices were issued under section 45 nor any proceedings were taken under that section. The Revenue Officer found that the petitioners had not paid batai to the landlord and that the land was not being cultivated according to the directions of the landlords. The petitioners were ordered to be ejected. The petitioners went in appeal to the Collector, who found that the allegations of the respondents about non-payment of batai and cultivation being not according to the directions of the landlord were not proved. But the ejectment was justified on grounds of self-cultivation because the land had been reserved by the Government for Stud-Farm and had been leased to the respondents for the same purpose. The petitioners went in…