P L D 1966 W (PLP)

Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for Respondents.. This order will dispose of the following four revisions:‑

(i) Abdur Rashid v. Ghulam Hussain and Ilam Din (Revision No. 1741 of 1963‑64). (ii) Shafiq Ahmad v. Ghulam Hussain and Ilam Din (Revision No. 1742 of 1963‑64). (iii) Bashir Ahmad v. Ghulam Hussain and Ilam Din (Revision No. 1743 of 1963‑64). (iv) Nisar Ahmad v. Ghulam Hussain and Ram Din (Revision No. 1744 of 1963‑64). These four revisions have been filed against orders dated the 13th of June 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore, whereby the appeals preferred by the respondents were accepted. The facts of the cases are that the petitioners (Landlords) sought the ejectment of the respondents (tenants) on the ground of self‑cultivation and non‑payment of rent. The Assistant Collector second Grade rejected their request. They went in appeal to the Collector, who accepted it and ordered the ejectment of the respondents. The latter then went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and the appeals were accepted. Hence these revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Ejectment on the basis of self‑cultivation cannot be invoked under the provisions of section 3 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act XIII of 1950. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, contended that the learned Collector ordered ejectment on the ground of non‑payment of rent. I, however, find that the respondents produced witnesses to the effect that they were prepared to pay the rent to the petitioners, but they, would not accept it. They also offered payment of rent before the Assistant Collector, but their offer was refused. The learned Collector has mentioned admission of the respondents for about non‑payment of rent. The learned Collector has remarked that it was admitted by the respondents that the rent has not been paid, to the appellants, (now petitioners) for the last two harvests. The material on record shows that although no actual rent has been paid, the respondents had been offering the payment of rent but these offers were always refused by the petitioners. It could not, therefore, be said that the respondents had not failed to pay the rent. Actually it was the petitioners, who would not accept the rent offered by the respondents. In these circumstances, ejectment on the basis of non‑payment of rent could not be justified. Keeping these factors in view, I see no justification for interference. All the four, revisions fail and are rejected hereby. K. M. A. Revisions dismissed.