P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(a) Rent‑

Mere production by tenant of receipts without con‑fronting landlord with them ‑ Held, not sufficient evidence of payment of rent Plea of existence of lease based on such receipts Does not require any finding. (b) Evacuee land‑

Revenue Officer and Revenue Court competent to proceed in respect of evacuee land under ordinary Revenue Law after confirmation of transfer. (c) Ejectment‑‑--Compensation claimed by tenant already ejected‑Claim for compensation on account of standing crops, dis turbance and improvements‑Remedy only by application under S.''74, Punjab Tenancy Act (XYI of 1887). An application for ejectment of the petitioner who is a tenant under lammed Begum and others, respondent landlords was made under section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950. The tenant did not appear before the Assistant Collector who relied on a report made by the process server that the petitioner was read out the notice but he declined to thumb‑mark it, and it was posted at his residential house. The process server was subsequently examined on oath and the Assis tant Collector after recording the evidence of the landlords directed ejectment on two grounds, namely non‑payment of rent and self cultivation by the landlords. An appeal was preferred against this order to the Collector who refused to accept the plea of non payment of rent, solely on the production of certain alleged receipts executed by the landlords acknowledging payment of rent. These receipts were not put to the landlord and their production only was considered sufficient evidence of payment. This is A contrary to the law of Evidence. The Collector, however, held self‑cultivation as sufficient ground for maintaining the order o ejectment. In revision the learned Additional Commissioner has upheld this order. A second revision has now been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner‑tenant has urged three points. Firstly that the land was held under a contract for a period of three years and the tenant could not be ejected without a regular suit Secondly, the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction as the property is evacuee in character though it stands con firmed Thirdly, that compensation which was due to the tenant on account of standing crops and improvements made in the land has not been assessed and paid. As regards the first two pleas it may be mentioned that these were not taken up at the initial stages. As already observed the contention regarding three, years lease of the land is based on the alleged receipts which were not, proved and their mere production cannot be considered as evidence` to justify any finding. Regarding the evacuee nature of the property; it is now fully established that after confirmation of evacuee land Revenue Officers and Revenue Courts are competent to proceed in respect thereof under the ordinary Revenue Law.! It is only before confirmation that the land is still in the nature of a claim and for that reason the officers of the Rehabilitation Department deal with it up to that stage. Regarding the third contention it may be mentioned that the tenant has already been ejected as is apparent from a report of the Revenue Officers who were assisted by the Police in carrying out the ejectment proceedings. The only course now open to the petitioner‑tenant is to make an application under section 74 of the Tenancy Act to the officer who has directed his ejectment and have the compensation due to him, on account of standing crops, disturbance and improvements made in the land, assessed and paid to him. The revision petition, however, stands dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.