Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MALIK GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: GHULAM YASIN
P L D 1960 W
P L D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 72
Before M. Z. Khan, Member Board of Revenue
West Pakistan
Malik GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner
versus
GHULAM YASIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Revision Side No. 11 of 1957‑58, decided on 2nd December 1958, District Mianwali.
Admission‑Defendants in suit for rent stating in written state ment that they had no objection to pay batai under certain conditions‑Amounts to admission that they had not paid rent.
Mahmood Shah for Petitioner.
Latif Anwar for Respondents.
ORDER
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 there was no suit for the recovery of rent for the subsequent years and if the respondents had not paid rent such suits should have been filed. It was further added that some of these suits have now become time‑barred. The petitioner produced a decree to show that a suit for the recovery of rent for the year 1956 was filed and a decree obtained. In view of the fact that the respondents themselves did not claim that they had paid the rent for any year to the landlord and the fact that the landlord produced a decree in respect of rent for the year 1950‑51 and also produced oral evidence that rent had not been paid, there was no reasonable ground for the conclusion that rent had been paid by the respondents. In fact, the Additional Commissioner has himself referred to the statement made by the respondents in the execution proceedings of the decree for arrears of rent for the year 1950‑51 to the effect that they had not paid any rent since 1950 to the landlord. He however, brushed aside this admission with the observation that he failed to see why the tenants made such a damaging statement against themselves. This is not an adequate ground for disregarding their admission.
In view of what is stated above, I am satisfied that there was no material on which the Collector or Additional Commissioner could come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner had not been proved. The evidence on record, including the written statement of the respondents and their admission clearly show that rent had not been paid by them since 1950.
The result is that the petition is allowed and the order of the Assistant Collector, II Grade, directing the ejectment of the respondents for non‑payment of rent is restored.
K. M. A. Petition allowed.