| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 31 1957 SLD 31 1957 PLD 242 |
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal No. 19 of 1955, decided on 22nd January, 1957 from the decree of Muhammad Akbar, District Judge, Attock at Campbellpur, dated the 9th October 1954, affirming that of Muhammad Saleem, Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, dated the 8th January 1954
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Said Akbar for Appellants. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal for
Respondents
Second Appeal No. 19 of 1955, decided on 22nd January, 1957 from the decree of Muhammad Akbar, District Judge, Attock at Campbellpur, dated the 9th October 1954, affirming that of Muhammad Saleem, Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, dated the 8th January 1954
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Said Akbar for Appellants. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal for
Respondents
MIRZA and others
VS
Raja MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN and others
Law: Punjab Tenancy Act, (XVI of 1887)
Section: 38,114(2)
(a) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)----- ---S. 38-Occupancy rights-Extinguishments of-Conditions necessary-"Sufficient cause"-Burden of proof. Section 38, Punjab Tenancy Act requires three circumstances for extinction of rights of occupancy: (1) failure to cultivate for more than one year personally or through some other person, (2) failure to pay rent, and (3) absence of sufficient cause. All the three elements must exist in order that occupancy rights may be extinguished. With regard to burden of proof in respect of "sufficient cause", held that: In a case where the tenant to whom abandonment is attributed is himself the defendant (and not his heir), it is necessary that the to a to what was the cause t at prevented him from cultivating the land. If he fails to take up such a plea, the failure would ordinarily be presumptive proof of absence of sufficient cause. This consideration, however, will however in the case where the tenant to whom abandonment is attribute is dead and the suit is being defended by his heirs who map note in a position to know why the tenant tailed to cultivate. In the case o an err w o has not yet taken possession of the tenancy, section 38 should be looked at from different angle. Want of "sufficient cause" in the latter case ought to be alleged and proved by the landlord. Lakha v. Thakar Dial and another 2 P R (Rev.) 1901 and Muhammad Umar Khan and another v. Fazi Khan etc. 170 PR 1919 ref. (b) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)------ ----S. 114(2) introduced by Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act (VII of 1952) -"Occupies any land as such"-Words, mere superfluity, result of inartistic drafting-Provided occupancy tenancy exists, it will be changed into ownership irrespective of whatever Such tenancy was or was not in Occupation of occupancy tenant. The words "occupies as such" occurring in subsection (2) of section 114, Punjab Tenancy Act, are a mere superfluity. If the occupancy right exists it will be changed into ownership irrespective of whether the occupancy tenant occupies or not such tenancy. (c) Interpretation of Statutes----- ----Words clearly going against the object and intention of legislation-May be treated as superfluity and…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492