P L D 1964 W (PLP)
SARDAR AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI — ‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | SARDAR AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI — ‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (SARDAR AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI — ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Ayub for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Landlord and tenant‑
Ejectment‑Suit for ejectment by one landlord in bona fide interests of other co‑sharers and for their benefit, competent. Ahmad v. Arbab Rahmat Ullah Khan and others P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 33 ref. (b) Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950)‑
Not applicable to old Bahawalpur State. The brief facts relating to these two Revision Petitions Nos. 28 and 29 of 1962‑63, are as follows :‑ The respondents who are tenants of the petitioner landlords were issued notices of ejectment under section 45 of the Tenancy Act. Various reasons were given in the applications for issue of notices though this was not necessary under the law. The respondents then brought two suits separately to contest the notices of ejectment but both were dismissed. The Collector interfered in appeal and held that all the landlords had not joined in the proceedings and the notices were, therefore, bad in law. On second appeal the learned Additional Commissioner came to a different conclusion. He held that following my decision in Ahmad v. Arbab Rahmat Ullah Khan and others (P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 33), if a landlord brings a suit in the bona fide interests of the other co‑sharers and to their benefit the suit should not be thrown out merely on they technical ground that all the landlords had not joined together in bringing it. The Additional Commissioner, however, inter fered on another issue which was raised before him namely that the landlords' title to the land under consideration was still in dispute before the Rehabilitation Authorities. As a matter of fact this dispute has been settled and even a writ petition brought before the High Court has also been dismissed. There were thus no grounds for the learned Additional Commissioner to set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector. Another legal issue has been raised by me namely whether the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 190 as amended in 1952 is applicable to the land in dispute which is situated in the old Bahawalpur State. The records of the State do not show that the Legislature of the State or the State Government enacted a measure corresponding to this Act. It is thus only the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 which was in force in this region. It was therefore not necessary for the landlords to take up any of the pleas laid down in section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act before having a notice of ejectment issued. I would as a result of the above discussion set aside the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that of the Assistant Collector. K. M. A. Revision accepted.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950)‑
Not applicable to old Bahawalpur State. Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioners. Muhammad Ayub for Respondent. The brief facts relating to these two Revision Petitions Nos. 28 and 29 of 1962‑63, are as follows :‑ The respondents who are tenants of the petitioner landlords were issued notices of ejectment under section 45 of the Tenancy Act. Various reasons were given in the applications for issue of notices though this was not necessary under the law. The respondents then brought two suits separately to contest the notices of ejectment but both were dismissed. The Collector interfered in appeal and held that all the landlords had not joined in the proceedings and the notices were, therefore, bad in law. On second appeal the learned Additional Commissioner came to a different conclusion. He held that following my decision in Ahmad v. Arbab Rahmat Ullah Khan and others (P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 33), if a landlord brings a suit in the bona fide interests of the other co‑sharers and to their benefit the suit should not be thrown out merely on they technical ground that all the landlords had not joined together in bringing it. The Additional Commissioner, however, inter fered on another issue which was raised before him namely that the landlords' title to the land under consideration was still in dispute before the Rehabilitation Authorities. As a matter of fact this dispute has been settled and even a writ petition brought before the High Court has also been dismissed. There were thus no grounds for the learned Additional Commissioner to set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector. Another legal issue has been raised by me namely whether the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 190 as amended in 1952 is applicable to the land in dispute which is situated in the old Bahawalpur State. The records of the State do not show that the Legislature of the State or the State Government enacted a measure corresponding to this Act. It is thus only the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 which was in force in this region. It was therefore not necessary for the landlords to take up any of the pleas laid down in section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act before having a notice of ejectment issued. I would as a result of the above discussion set aside the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that of the Assistant Collector. K. M. A. Revision accepted.