| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1964 SLG 3727 = 1964 SLD 3727 = 1964 PLD 33 |
West Pakistan
Revision No. 77 of 1961-62, decided on 8th March 1963, District Sialkot.
Presented By: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Revision No. 77 of 1961-62, decided on 8th March 1963, District Sialkot.
Presented By: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
HAKIM DIN AND OTHERS-Petitioners
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD IQBAL-Respondent
Law: Punjab Tenancy Act, (XVI of 1887)
Section: 70
Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)----- ------S. 70-Provisions mandatory-Framing of issue for determination of compensation, essential, even though tenant has not claimed any compensation in his written statement. ORDER This is a revision petition under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and the facts, briefly, are that the respondent-landlord instituted a suit under section 77 (3) (e) of the Act for ejectment of the petitioners-tenants from the land in dispute for non-payment of rent and on the ground of self cultivation. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sialkot, decreed the suit on 28-2-1962 in favour of the respondent-landlord. In appeal filed by the tenants the Collector, Sialkot interfered and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the main ground that the Assistant Collector had not recorded the evidence in his own hand and it was taken down by the Court officials. In second appeal, however, the learned Additional Commissioner, Lahore reversed the order passed by the Collector and restored that of the Assistant Collector. A revision has now been filed by the petitioners- tenants. Two main points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, firstly, that the petitioners had paid the arrears of rent to the respondent in the trial Court, hence no default had occurred which could justify their ejectment. Secondly, that the trial Court omitted to direct the petitioners to file a statement of their claim to compensation for improvement as required under section https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=1964BR-WP22 1/3 P L D 1964 W 70 of the Tenancy Act and consequently failed to comply with a mandatory provision of the law as the Court did not determine the…