1980 PLP 465 (CLC)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAQUE — Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 465 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Aftab Hussain, J |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAQUE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 115] |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 465 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M. L. R. 115] as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 465 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Aftab Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 465 (CLC) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAQUE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh for Appellant.
- Mian Abdul Latif for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Para. 25(1) read with para. 2(7) Tenant
Para. 2(7) excludes local authority from its ambit - Local authority, hence, not a person for purposes of Regulation-Lease by local authority of its own land or Government' land administered by it
Tenant of such land held, not protected under para.
25. Taj Muhammad v. Punjab Province Writ Petition No. 980 of 1976 ref. Ahmad Din v. Khushi Muhammad P L D 1979 Lah. 410 rel. Date of herring : 11th July, 1979.
Judgment & Decree
Ahmad Din v. Khushi Muhammad P L D 1979 Lah. 410 rel. Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh for Appellant. Mian Abdul Latif for Respondent. Date of herring : 11th July, 1979. The respondent obtained a lease of the property in dispute from Town Committee Sangla Hill, Sheikhupura in the year 1972 for a period of three years. After the expiry of the period he filed a suit claiming that in view of para, 25 of the Martial Law Regulation 115 he eras a protected tenant and could not be ejected from the an except on the grounds given in that para. This suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 2-12-1978 but in appeal it was decreed by Mr. Nusrat Hussain Qureshi, Additional District Judge, Shaikhupura on 6-3-1979.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that para. 25 is no applicable to Government tenant in view of Taj Muhammad v. Punjab Province W. P. 980 of 1975, deceased on 19-12-78), it was held lit that case that the definition of the `tenant' under the Tenancy Act has been extended by the Land Commission to the Martial Law Regulation
115. The word `tenant' is defined in the Tenancy Act as a person holding land under another person which means that a landlord must be a person. The word 'person' is defined in para. 2(7) of the Regulation. It was held that the Government is not a person under the Regulation and as such its tenant is not a tenant within the meaning of para. 25 of the Regulation and is not accordingly protected.
3. Faced with this situation the learned counsel for respondent argued that the land it dispute belongs to the Town Committee Sangla Hill, Sheikhu pura and not to the Government. Though it appears clear that the Town Committee is administering the Government's land and in that capacity has; let it out to the respondent but even if it is assumed that the Town Committee is the landlord the respondent cannot rely upon para. 25 since the definition of the word `person' in para 2(7) of the Regulation includes a local authority from its ambit. It was on this ground that it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Ahmad Din v. Khushi Muhammad (P L D 1979 Lah. 410) that the Thal Development Authority is not a person and as such its tenants are not protected by para, 25 of the Regulation. This principle will apply to the respondent's case also. The learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by ignoring these points.
4. I, therefore; allow this Petition without any order as to costs, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge and restore the decree of the learned trial Court. K. M. A Appeal allowed.