P L D 1953 Peshawar 42 (PLP)

The first Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned Senior Sub‑Judge upset the above finding, and granted plaintiff a decree for the eviction of the defendant on payment of Rs.

184. In view of Ordinance No. III of 1951, the Senior Sub‑Judge, however, ordered that the decree shall not be executed until the Ordinance remains in force. Sher Afzal has come up in revision to this Court. The Ordinance to which a reference has been made by the learned Senior Sub‑Judge in his order has now been superseded by the North West Frontier Province Tenants' (Rural Housing Protection Act XI of 1952. Under its section 3, "Irrespective of anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no tenant can be evicted from his house whether in execution of a decree or otherwise". Subsection (d) of section 2 defines the tenant as meaning a person, who being an agricultural tenant who personally cultivates land or being a village artisan, being in a village abadi dwells in a house either built by himself or by the owner and is, or, but for a special contract, custom or usage, would be liable to pay rent whether in cash or in kind to the owner. The learned counsel for the respondent argues that this Act does not apply to the facts of the present case, because Sher Afzal is not a tenant within the meaning of the above Act, he being only a butcher. The term village artisan used in the definition of the tenant has nowhere been defined. The word artisan in Chambers 20th Century dictionary means anyone skilled in any art or trade. The village artisan, however, in this Province seems to have a special meaning and a significance. In IOU Judicial Record, Volume 1, Mr. W. P. Barton, the then Judicial Commissioner explained this term as under: "Village artisans such as blacksmiths, carpenters, nais and the like who have been given sites in the joint village abadi by the proprietary body on condition that they render the customary services of their calling to their proprietors. This class also includes village shopkeepers established in the larger villages such as Rustam, Moti Mardan etc." It is conceded that village Tangi Nasratzai is a large village. Accepting the definition of the village artisan given in the above judgment, a shopkeeper in Tangs Nasra;zai would definitely be a village aritsan and consequently a tenant within the meaning of this word, in the North‑West Frontier Province Tenants' (Rural Housing) Protection Act XI of 1952. The tenants under the Act cannot be evicted for a period of two years from the 7th of June 1952. Without, therefore, going into the question whether the custom of eviction exists in village Tangi Nasratzai or not, I think the plaintiff at least so long as the North‑West Frontier Province Tenants' (Rural Housing) Protection Act is in force, is out of Court. I consequently accept this revision petition, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court, and dismiss the plaintiff's suit. I he parties snail bear their own costs throughout. Orders announced. A. H. Petition accepted.