P L D 1959 W (PLP)

S. 3 (S)‑Compensation not determined by Revenue Officer in ex‑parte ejectment order‑Tenant could be ejected without payment of compensation. Kh. Abdur Rahim with Ghulam Ali Alvi for Petitioner. Muhammad Amin for Respondent. There are four revision petitions against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Multan refusing to entertain and proceed with the revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the order of the Collector, Multan, dated 21‑8‑57 by which he upheld the order of the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Burewala, directing the ejectment of petitioners from the land in question. I have heard Kh. Abdur Rahim, Advocate with Mr. Ghulam Ali Alvi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Amin Advocate for the respondent. The facts of the case are that the petitioners held the land in dispute under the respondent as tenants. The respondent filed an application under section 3 of Act XIII of 1950 before the Assistant Collector II Grade, Burewala, for the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that they had failed to cultivate the land in accor dance with the customary manner of cultivation and had also failed to pay rent in accordance with the terms of the tenancy. This application was filed on 13‑11‑56 and on the same day issue of notices to the tenants was ordered by the Court. On 14‑11‑56, the process‑server reported that he had gone to the village but the tenants had refused to accept service. He had, therefore pasted a copy of the notice on their houses. On 15‑11‑56 ex‑parte proceed ings were ordered against the tenants and after recording the evidence of the landlord and his witnesses the ejectment of the petitioners was ordered. An appeal was filed against this order before the Collector and he held that there was nothing to show that the notices of ejectment had not been validly served on the tenants and that it was proved that they had refused to accept service and there was nothing on the record to support the conten tion of the appellants that they had been paying rent. The appeals were rejected. Revision petitions were filed before the Additional Commissioner who refused to entertain the petitions without certified copies of the Collector's order and the Assistant Collec tor's order. It has been argued before me that the petitioners in fact never refused to accept the service of notice and that it was impossible for the process‑server to have come back from the village on 14‑11‑56 and to make the report which he did before the Assistant Collector, II Grade, in view of the fact that the village lies some twenty miles away from the Tahsil. I do not think that it was impossible for the process‑server to have travelled twenty miles on 14‑11‑56 to reach back to the Tahsil. It has also been said that there has been a material irregularity in this case inasmuch as the procedure for substituted service as laid down in Order V, rule 20 ‑of the Civil Procedure Code was not followed because it was for the: Court and not for the process‑server himself to hold that substi tuted service in this case was called for. This is not correct. because the respondents having refused service the process‑server was competent under Order V, rule 17 to affix a copy of the summons on the outer door of the house of the petitioners. It has also been argued that the Assistant Collector II Grade failed to exercise proper jurisdiction because he had not determined the compensation which was payable to the tenants as contemplated by section 3 (5) of the Punjab Act XIII of 1950. The proviso to this section says that in no case shall a tenant be ejected without paying such compensation to him as he may be entitled to under t the law for the standing crops etc. "as may be determined by the Revenue Officers". Since in this case the amount of compensation was not at all determined by the Revenue Officer, I am of the view that the petitioners could be ejected without payment of compensa tion. In any case according to the petitioner's case they are still in possession and have reaped the benefit of the standing crops and the question of payment of compensation to them does not arise. On both points viz. whether service of summons was properly effected on the petitioners and whether the landlord has proved that the petitioners had failed to pay rent, there are concurrent findings of the lower Courts. Even if these findings are erroneous it would not be a fit case for me to exercise interference in revision. In these circumstances all the petitions are dismissed. A. H. Petitions dismissed.