P L D 1964 W (PLP)

(a) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 100‑Decision of High Court conclusive. (b) Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950), S. 3‑Ejectment only when conditions laid down in S. 3 are established. This revision petition has been preferred against an order of the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, dated 10‑5‑1963. The facts briefly are that the respondents who are landlords of the land involved in the proceedings situated in village Kalewala, district Gujranwala brought a suit for the ejectment of the tenants‑petitioners in a Civil Court on the plea that rent had not been paid and the tenants were defaulters. Without going into the detailed history of the case it may be mentioned that the suit was decreed and the decree was upheld by the District Judge. A revision was preferred in the High Court and an issue was raised on behalf of the tenants that the Civil Courts did not have jurisdiction to try the suit which was cognizable only by a competent Revenue Court under section 77 of the Tenancy Act. The learned Judge accepted the plea but acting under the provision of section 100 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, he was pleased to direct that the decree of the trial Court should be registered as a decree of the Assistant Collector of the 1st grade and of the District Judge that of the Collector of the district. He left it open to the appellants, that is to say the tenants who are petitioners before me, to seek any remedy by way of appeal, revision or otherwise against the appellate decree of the Collector. A revision preferred against this decree to the learned Additional Commissioner was dismissed. It is this order which is now under consideration before me. The counsel for the landlords has raised a preliminary objection that the order passed by the High Court maintains the decree passed by the District Judge; it is thus final under section 100 of the Tenancy Act and the matter cannot be re agitated. The point before the High Court was in respect of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and the decision on this point is certainly conclusive under the provisions of section 100 but the learned Judge specifically said in his order that it was open to the appellants, i.e., to say the petitioners‑tenants before me, to seek any remedy by way of appeal, revision or otherwise if available under the law against the appellate decree of the Collector. The preliminary objection, therefore, has no force which as a matter of fact is quite contrary to the decision of the learned Judge. The main issue which has been raised before me is that under the provisions of section 115 (3) of the C. P. C. the Courts below have committed a material irregularity and mis‑applied the law relating to ejectment of tenants thereby giving a decree for eject ment which constitutes a substantial mis‑carriage of justice. It is contended that provisions regarding ejectment of tenants contained in the Tenancy Act have been amended by the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950 and under section 3 of the latter Act, a tenant ran now only be ejected if it is established that he has :‑ (i) failed to pay the rent in accordance with the terms of the tenancy; or (ii) . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) used the land comprised in the tenancy in a manner which render s it unfit for the purposes for he held it ; or (iv) failed to cultivate or arrange for the cultivation of the land emprise in the tenancy in accordance with the terms thereof, or if there are no express terms in this behalf, in accordance with the customary manner of cultivation in the locality: There are certain provisos attached to the section but these need not be gone into for the purpose of this petition. Ejectment, therefore, could only have been ordered if any of these three grounds is established. Now it is in evidence that the land was held since 1936 without payment of any rent and the tenants were liable only to pay the land revenue. The entries in the revenue records had been amended on a representation by the landlords themselves and a mutation to that effect was attested on 20‑12‑1936. There was thus no question of default in payment of rent and the tenants were not liable to ejectment on this ground. The landlord's plea is that the land was held without payment of any rent in lieu of services rendered by the tenants as Imam of the village mosque and as the tenants had ceased to render these services they had become liable to ejectment. Entries in the revenue records do not support this contention. There is a mention to this effect in the jamabandis preceding 1911‑12 but after that date these entries disappear. There is thus no doubt that the Courts below have erred in applying the law which is not the ordinary Tenancy Act but the Punjab Protection) and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950 which restricts eject ment of tenants except when certain defaults on the latter's part are established. None of the conditions laid down in section 3 of the Act were fulfilled and the ejectment to tenants, therefore, has not been in accordance with law. I would as a result of the above discussion accept this revision petition with costs and direct that the tenants be put in possession of the land. The decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside. K. M. A. Revision accepted.