Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MST. SAUGHAI VS Respondent: KAMAL DIN
P L D 1966 W
P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 98
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
Mst. SAUGHAI‑Petitioner
versus
KAMAL DIN‑Respondent
Revision No. 234 of 1964-65, decided on 16th February 1965.
Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950), S. 3‑Ejectment cannot be ordered on ground of self cultivation‑Action can be properly taken under S. 77, Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887).
Sajid Hussain on behalf of Aftab Hussain for Petitioner. Dastgir Ahmad Khan for Respondent.
ORDER
This is a revision filed against an order dated the 2nd of December 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, who, while exercising powers of a Commissioner, rejected the second appeal preferred by the petitioner.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner moved the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, for the ejectment of the respondent under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act of 1950. The Assistant Collector ordered the ejectment of the respondent. The respondent went in appeal to the Collector who accepted the appeal and remanded the case. The petitioner went in second appeal to the Additional Commissioner who rejected it. Hence this Revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question for determination is whether ejectment of the respondent could be undertaken by invoking section 3 of the Punjab Protection and restoration of Tenancy Rights Act of 1950, or not. The learned Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, did not order ejectment of the petitioner on any grounds mentioned in section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act of 1950. The main ground on which the ejectment was ordered was self cultivation. No ejectment can be ordered under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act of 1950, on this ground. The proper course for the petitioner would have been to take action under section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.
In these circumstances, the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner were perfectly justified. No interference is called for. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
K.M. A Revision dismissed.