P L D 1966 W (PLP)
NAZAR HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF AHD OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | NAZAR HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF AHD OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (NAZAR HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF AHD OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Rasul for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Landlord and tenant‑Ejectment‑Tenant failing to pay rent on account of dispute regarding exact amount‑Such tenant later depositing arrears of rent under direction of Revenue Court‑Cannot be ejected. Respondent No. 1 in person as Mukhtar‑e‑Khas of Respon dent No. 2.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent No. 1 in person as Mukhtar‑e‑Khas of Respon dent No.
2. This is revision filed against an order dated the 10th of December 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the revision preferred by the respondents was rejected. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the ejectment of the respondents on the ground of non‑payment of rent for the year 1962‑
63. The Assistant Collector, II Grade, ordered the ejectment of the respondents. They went in appeal to the Collector, but the appeal was dismissed. A revision was then filed before the Additional Commissioner. Another revision had already been 'filed in respect of the rent for the for the year 1961‑
62. In that case, the Assistant Collector had passed a decree for Rs. 95, but the Collector increased it to Rs.
500. Both the revisions were decided on 10‑12‑1964 and it was observed that the tenant on account of some dispute regarding the exact amount did not pay the amount. The respondents were given a month's time to clear the amount. The petitioner has come up in revision. Arguments were partly heard on the last hearing and it was decided that, as the respondents had not paid the amount for 1962‑63, 1963‑64 and 1964‑65, they should deposit the amount of Rs. 1,500 as rent for these three years and, in that case, they would not be ejected. It is conceded that this amount has been deposited by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the real amount of rent is Rs. 650 and Rs. 450 more should be paid by the respondents to the petitioner. I am afraid I cannot accept this suggestion, because the decretal amount for 1962‑63 was Rs.
500. It is further contended that the amount was reduced from Rs. 650 to 500 so that the Tahsildar may entertain the application for ejectment. Whatever may be the reasons for claiming Rs. 500 the Tahsilar could not grant a decree for more than this amount. In these circumstances, payment of Rs. 1,500 should be considered as clearance of the arrears of rent for the years 1962‑63, 1963‑64 and 1964‑65, and the question of ejecting the respondents does not now arise. The revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. The petitioner can withdraw the amount from the treasury. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.