P L D (Rev (PLP)
BUTA and another-Petitioners Versus GURDWARA NADHA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Akhter Husain, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | BUTA and another-Petitioners Versus GURDWARA NADHA‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Landlord and tenant, (a) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Landlord and tenant, (a) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Akhter Husain, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (BUTA and another-Petitioners Versus GURDWARA NADHA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal, Government Pleader, for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5 (1) (a), (2) ‑Tenant proving that he occupied land for more than 30 years and paid no rent beyond land revenue and cesses‑‑Acquires occupancy rights under S. 5 (1) (a).
‑Relationship‑Whether not proved to have been established by the fact of entry in Jamabandi that tenant was paying rent equal to amount payable by landowners without 'Malikana'. It is not correct to hold that because in the Jamabandi of 1938‑39 the petitioners have been recorded as paying rent equal to the amount of land revenue payable by landowners without any 'Malikana' on account of long standing possession, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did not exist. The very reference to land revenue and cesses as rent and to reasons for not paying ' Malikana' shows that the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist. Buta and Chirgh, Petitioners in person.
Judgment & Decree
AKHTER HUSAIN, F. C.‑This is a reference case received from the Commissioner, Lahore Division, with the recom mendation that the decree of the Assistant Collector, which has been confirmed by the Collector, should be set aside in revision and replaced by a decree declaring that the petitioners are not liable to ejectment on the basis of the notice of eject ment issued to them, coupled with a direction that their costs throughout should be borne by the respondent
2. In his forwarding note dated 29th March 1949, the Commissioner, Lahore Division, has given the tacts of the case in detail and need not be repeated here The entries in the revenue records which date back to 1912‑13. show that the petitioners have been paying rent at not more than land revenue and cesses. The learned Commissioner is not correct in holding that because in the Jamabandi of 1938‑39 the peti tioners have been recorded as paying rent equal to the amount payable by landowners without any 'Malikana' on account of long standing possession, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the. parties did not exist. The very reference to land revenue and cesses as rent and to reasons for not paying 'Malik ana' shows that the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist. The only question is whether the long standing possession has given the petitioners any right of occupancy. Section 5 (1) (a) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, provides that a tenant who occupies land for more than two generations and for a period of not less than 20 years, paying no rent beyond the amount of the land revenue and cesses, has a right of occupancy. Clause (2) of that section also provides that if a tenant proves that he has continuously occupied land for 30 years and paid no rent therefor beyond the amount of the land revenue and cesses, it may be presumed that he has fulfilled the conditions of clause (a) of subsection (1). In this case the petitioners are proved to have occupied the land, having paid no rent beyond land revenue and cesses, for a period of over 30 years, They have, therefore, acquired occupancy rights under sec tion 5 (1) (a) of the Act. I accept the revision, set aside the decree of the Assistant Collector as confirmed by the Collec tor; and direct that the petitioners shall be recorded as occupancy tenants under section 5 (1) (a) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, and shall not be liable to ejectment on the basis of the notice of ejectment issued "to them. As the respondents are now evacuees, I pass no order as to costs. Announced. A. H. Revision accepted.