| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1960 SLG 371 1960 SLD 371 1960 PLD 72 |
West Pakistan
M. Z. KHAN, MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE
Mahmood Shah for Petitioner. Latif Anwar for
Respondents.
M. Z. KHAN, MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE
Mahmood Shah for Petitioner. Latif Anwar for
Respondents.
MALIK GHULAM MUHAMMAD
VS
GHULAM YASIN AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
THIS ORDER PASSED BY: M. Z. KHAN, MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE Petitions Nos. 11 to 14 of 1957 58 may be taken up together, as they are of the same nature. They are under section 6 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950, read with section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, against order dated 12 2 58, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar and D. I. Khan divisions. The petitioner filed four applications under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950, before the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Mianwali, for the ejectment of respondents from certain land In village Thame Wall, Tehsil and District Mianwali. The tenants (respondents) resisted the applications and denied their liability to ejectment. The Assistant Collector, II Grade, after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties passed order dated 1 8 56, directing the ejectment of the respon¬dents from the tenancy on the ground that the produce rent had not been paid. The respondents filed an appeal before the Collector, Mianwali, who set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. The petitioner then filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the Collector's order. In order to establish that the respondents had not paid the produce rent, the petitioner produced a decree for non payment of rent for the year 1950 51. He also produced four witnesses (including a Patwari) who deposed that the respondents do not pay rent. The Additional Commissioner has observed that the pro¬duction of the decree relating to non payment of rent for the year 1950 51, could not lead to the inference that rent had not been paid for subsequent years. It appears that the correct position has not been appreciated. When the issues were framed the respondents filed a written statement in which they did not contend that they had paid the rent. What they stated was that they had no objection to pay batai under certain conditions. This is implied an admission on their part that they had not paid the rent. At the time of arguments it was contended on behalf of the respondents that…
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