P L D 1966 W (PLP)
ABDUL HAQUE ETC.‑Petitioners Versus Mst. FATEH BIBI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDUL HAQUE ETC.‑Petitioners Versus Mst. FATEH BIBI‑Respondent |
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) (ABDUL HAQUE ETC.‑Petitioners Versus Mst. FATEH BIBI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yayha for Petitioners.
- Nazir Ahmad Yirk and Muhammad Ismail for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ejectment‑Landlord and tenant‑Notice of ejectment- Determination of validity or otherwise of notice to be made after perusal of revenue record‑Relationship of landlord and tenant established‑Tenant failing to prove that batai had been paid -Notice cannot be held to be invalid.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Yayha for Petitioners. Nazir Ahmad Yirk and Muhammad Ismail for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against on order dated the 18th of July 1963, passed by Additional Commissioner, Lahore, (while exercising the powers of the Commissioner) whereby he rejected the revision preferred by the petitioners. The facts of the case are that the respondent filed an appli cation for ejectment of the petitioners before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, on the ground that they had defaulted in payment of rent for the year 1962. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that the respondent bad limited interest and they had become owners after the death of their uncle. The Assistant Collector, however, held that the respondent was in hissadari possession of the land in dispute and the petitioners were her tenants. They were, therefore, ordered to be ejected. The petitioners, went in appeal to the Collector but it was dismissed. They then filed a revision before the Commissioner which was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notice was invalid and, therefore, a point of law was involved. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. The determination whether the notice was valid or not was to be made with the help of evidence of the revenue records. This was actually done. Moreover, find that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been fully established There could, therefore, be no question of the notice being invalid specially when the petitioners were not able to prove that they had paid the batai to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred me to Lahore. Law Times, 1932, page
141. That case related to relation ship that existed between the mortgagee and mortgagor after the mortgage had been set aside. It has, therefore, no relevancy to the present case. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any inter ference at the second revisional stage. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.