P L D 1961 W (PLP)

Akhtar Ahm2d Shah for Petitioner. This is a revision petition from the order of Commissioner, Surgodh a Division, dated 4‑7‑1961, whereby he held the ejectment of the present respondents as perverse, set aside the appellate order dated 15‑10‑1960 of the S. D. O. (Collector) Bhakkar, and ordered the restoration of the tenancy from which the present respondents had been ejected. The facts briefly are that the petitioner had applied for ejectment of the respondents who were his tenants‑at‑will under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act X111 of 1950. The Assistant Collector, 11 O1Vade, Bhakkar, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had admitted that they have been paid all rents due up‑to‑date by the respondents. On appeal, S. D. O., Bhakkar, exercising powers of Collector, found that the respondents had, on their own admissions, been convicted under section 188 of P. P. C. for removing the crop from the threshing floor, without payment of rent. This fact and the petitioner's Mukhtar's statement in the Lower Court "that batai had to be recovered from the respondents generally through police" showed that they were reluctant to give the batai rents. He therefore, accepted the appeal and ordered their ejectment. On further appeal the learned Commissioner held these findings to be "not only unreason able and perverse, but also running counter to what has been brought on the file." I find myself in agreement with this verdict. I feel that the main reason for the wrong decision by the Collector is the fact that he did not refer to the law governing cases of this kind, for, if he had one so, I am sure, he would have taken pains to see that the facts before him came within its ambit, before ordering ejectment. Section 3 (1) (i) of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act XIII of 1950, which contains the law applicable to this case, provides as follows:‑ "3 (1) Notwithstanding any provision contained in any other law foil the time being in force to the contrary, a tenant shall not be ejected from his tenancy unless it is established that he has - (i) failed to pay rent in accordance with the terms of the tenancy or . . . . . ." The learned Collector remarked that the petitioner's Mukhtiar had shown how difficult it was to recover rent from the respon dents. He, however, failed to notice that in the same statement he had admitted that all rents due from respondents up‑to‑date had been recovered, though with police help. Had the above sub‑clause (i) read "failed to pay the rent at any time.", then the Collector would have had a good case for arriving at his decision. But this is not the position. Its wording shows that in a case like the present, where all rents have been paid, it must clearly be held that the tenants‑at‑will, are protected fro m ejectment. The position would also have been otherwise, if it had been proved that "the terms of the tenancy" had provided that the batai rents would be shared at the threshing floor. For in that event the respondents would have been guilty of having "failed to pay rent in accordance with the terms of the tenancy" within the meanings of section 3 (I) (i). But the petitioner has nowhere claimed that the sharing of the crop at the threshing floor was one of the terms of tenancy and the removal of crops, therefore, before division was a breach of these terms. This being the position, the learned Commissioner has arrived at the correct findings. There is no force in any of the grounds of revision which is rejected in limine. S. B. Petition rejected.