1984 PLP 1316 (CLC)

(a) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)‑ ‑ S. 42‑Ejectment‑Tenant can either be ejected in execution of a decree for ejectment or when a decree for an. arrear of rent in respect of his tenancy passed against him remains unsatisfied. (b) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)‑ ‑‑ Ss. 42, 43 & 47‑Ejectment‑Landlord filing ejectment suits against tenants and not applications as envisaged in section 43 Exception (a) of section 42. held, not violated‑Exception (a) of S. 42 serves as a bar when ejectment is sought by making an application to Revenue Officer and has no relevancy when ejectment is sought to be enforced by obtaining a decree from Revenue Court under section

47. Khuda Bakhsh v. Additional Commissioner Sargodha and 2 others P L D 1980 Lah. 353 ; Ghulam Rasool and another v. Additional Commis sioner (Revenue) and 2 others 1982 C L C 1404 ; Akbar etc. v. Mst. Sarwar Sultana P L D 1980 Revenue 7 and Shamshad and 2 others v. Mian Abdul Rehman and 4 others P L D 1983 Pesh. 27 ref. (c) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M. L. R. 115)‑‑ ‑‑ Para. 25 ‑Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules 1977, rr. 4 (2) & 8 ‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑Assistant Collector of first grade while making such enquiry as considered necessary, Held, not obliged to follow entire procedure for disposal of a regular suit irrespective of fact that provisions of C. P. C. are applicable to ejectment of suit so far as they are not inconsistent with Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977. (d) Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977‑ ‑‑ R. 4 (3)‑Ejectment of tenant‑Judicial notice of documents on record of ejectment suit, held, can justifiably be taken, as copies of Jamabandi entries and copies of `Khasra Girdawari' entries being certified copies of public record do not require any formal proof Presumption of correctness is attached to Jamabandi entries. Nathey Khan v. Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others P L D 1961 B J 96 rel. (e) Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981)-‑ ‑‑Art. 9‑Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1882), S. 42‑Writ jurisdic tion‑Finding of fact‑Questions as to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and non‑payment of rent by tenants to landlord being questions of fact, held, cannot be agitated in writ jurisdiction. Sadiq Hussain Qureshi v. Federation of Pakistan and others P L D 1979 Lah. 1 rel. This judgment shall dispose of four Constitutional Petitions, viz. Writ Petition No. 2948 of 1983, Writ Petition No. 2949 of 1983, Writ Petition No. 2950 of 1983 and Writ Petition No. 29_1 of 1983 as ques tions for determination involved in these four matters are the same.

2. Atta Muhammad petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2948 of 1983 and Writ Petition No. 2951 of 1983, Noor Muhammad petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2949 and Nawaz petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2950 of 1983 were cultivating agricultural land as tenants at‑ will under Mst. Kauser Khatoon and Mst. Bakht Waddi for the last about two decades. The said Mst. Kauser Khatoon and Mst. Bakht Waddi allegedly transferred the agricultural land in question in favour of Mst. Siraj Begum respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 2948 of 1983, Luqman Shah respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 2949 of 1983 and Mst. Sohna Bibi respondent No. 3 in both Writ Petitions Nos, 2950 of 1983 and 2951 of 1983.

3. The aforesaid Mst. Siraj Begum, Luqman Shah and Sohna Bibi filed four different ejectment suits against Atta Muhammad, Noor Muhammad and Nawaz, the tenants in occupation of their respective lands before Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Shahpur, District Sargodha. Needless to add that the original owners, namely, Mst. Kauser Khatoon and Mst. Bakht Waddi filed a declaratory suit before the civil Court seeking a declaration to the effect that the sale mutation in favour of Mst. Siraj Begum etc. was illegal, void and ineffective as the same was based on fraud and conspiracy. The declaratory suit is said to be still pending. The Civil Court, however, did not grant any temporary relief against Mst. Siraj Begum etc. to Mst. Kauser Khatoon etc. or to the tenants.

4. The learned Assistant Collector Shahpur vide his order, dated 30th November, 1982 dismissed the ejectment suits of Mst. Siraj Begum etc. holding that they had failed to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Mst. Siraj Begum, Luqman Shah and Mst. Sohna Bibi filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Shahpur which were later on transferred to Assistant Commissioner/ Collector Jauharabad, under orders of the Commissioner; Sargodha Division Sargodha, dated 3rd April, 1983 on application of the appellants (respondents herein). The learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector Jauharabed disposed of the appeals by one consolidated judgment, dated 6th June, 1983 whereby he accepted the appeals and ordered the ejectment of the tenants. The tenants went in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division, Sargodha, who also vide his consolidated judgment, dated 3rd July, 1983 dismissed all the four revision petitions and upheld the judgment of the Assistant Commissioner Collector, Jauharabad.

5. The tenants viz., Atta Muhammad, Noor Muhammad and Nawaz have now, through the under consideration four Constitutional Petitions, assailed the afore-said order, dated 6th June, 1983 and 3rd July. 1983 passed respectively by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector. Jauharabad, and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha Division, Sargodha, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

6. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that no decree for arrears of rent was outstanding against the petitioners, therefore, the impugned orders were violative of the provisions of section 42 of the) Punjab Tenancy Act. It has also been urged that while passing the impugned orders, learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner have relied upon documents which were neither tendered in evidence nor formally proved. No judicial notice could there fore, be taken of the said documents.

7. Section 42 of the Punjab Tenancy Act provides that a tenant shall not be ejected otherwise than in execution of a decree for ejectment, except when a decree for an arrear of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed against him and remains unsatisfied. It thus transpires from the provisions of section 42 (ibid) that a tenant can either be ejected in execu tion of a decree for ejectment or when a decree for an arrear of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed against him and remains unsatisfied. A decree for ejectment contemplated by section 42 (ibid) can be passed by a Revenue Court under section 7? (3), Second Group, clause (e) of the Punjab Tenancy Act while ejectment sought on the ground that a decree for an arrear of rent has been passed against the tenant and has remained un satisfied can be enforced by applying to the Revenue Officer under section 43 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. In the circumstances of the under consi deration case, the landlords filed ejectment suits against the petitioners and not applications envisaged in section 43 (ibid). Exception (a) to section 42 of the Punjab Tenancy Act has, therefore, not been violated. The said exception serves as a bar when the ejectment of a tenant is sought by making an application to the Revenue Officer and has no relevancy when the ejectment of the tenant is sought to be enforced by obtaining a decree for his ejectment from a Revenue Court under section 77 (ibid). , Reliance has been placed on : Khuda 3akhsh v. Additional Commissioner, Sargodha and 2 others (P L D 1980 Lah. 353); Ghulam Rasool and another v. Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and 2 others (1982 C L C 1404) ; Akbar etc. v. 1st. Sarwar Sultana (P L D 1980 Rev. 7) ; All these authorities are ‑distinguishable inasmuch as the ratio decidendi of these authorities is applicable when the ejectment of a tenant is sought through an application before the Revenue Officer and not by filing an ejectment suit before the Revenue Court. In Shamshad and 2 others v. Mian Abdul Rehman and 4 others (P L D 1983 Pesh. 27) , it was held that under section 24 of the N.‑W. F. P. Tenancy Act, a tenant can be ejected who fails to pay rent on due date, by moving the Revenue Court under section 49 of the Act (ibis), as only the Revenue Court under clause (c) of the Second Group to Section 49 has the jurisdiction in the matter viz., the suit by landlord to eject a tenant. However, if a decree for an arrear of rent remain unsatisfied, the decree‑holder can move a Revenue Officer under section 26 of the Act (ibid) to have the tenant ejected. The distinction between the two provisions as envisaged by law, is that a landlord can seek the ejectment of a tenant by moving the Revenue Court under section 24 of the Act (ibid) in case the tenant fails to pay rent on due date and only a Revenue Court is competent to pass the ejectment decree while a land lord who had obtained a decree for arrears of rent and the same remains un satisfied, by moving the Revenue Officer, can seek the ejectment of the tenant under sections 26 and 27 of the Act (ibid). It may be noticed that provisions of section 24 of the N.‑W. F. P. Tenancy Act are analogous to those of section 42 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Similarly, provisions of section 49 of the N.‑W. F. P. Tenancy Act correspond to those of section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act while provisions of section 26 of the N.‑W. F. P. Tenancy Act are analogous to section 43 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

8. Under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972, a tenant can be ejected from his tenancy if it is established in Revenue Court that he has failed to pay the rent in accordance with the terms of his tenancy. The procedure for ejectment suits is contained in the rules called "The Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977." These rules have been made by the Land Commission of the Punjab for carrying out the purposes of sub‑paragraph (1) of paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 relating to ejectment of tenants. Under rule 4 (3) of the aforesaid Rules, the Assistant Collector of the First Grade, after hearing the parties on a date fixed for the purpose and after making such enquiries as he may considered necessary, call pass an order directing the tenant to be ejected or the notice to be discharged, as the case may be. It is thus evident that in an ejectment suit, the Assistant Collector of the First Grade has to make such enquiry as he may consider) necessary and it is not obligatory for him to follow the entire procedure as has been prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure for the disposal of a regular civil suit. No doubt provisions of Civil Procedure Code, by virtue of rule 8 (ibid), are applicable to ejectment suits so far as they are not inconsistent with the rules.

9. As already stated, the second ground on which the validity of the impugned orders has been challenged is that the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) have relied upon documents which were neither duly tendered in evidence nor formally proved. It transpires from the contents of the impugned orders as also from those of the Assistant Collector Grade‑I, Shahpur whereby the eject ment suits of the respondents were dismissed, that the respondents enclosed with their plaints, copies of Khasra Girdawari entries as also copies of Jamabandi entries. The learned Assistant Collector Grade‑I, Shahpur did not rely upon the contents of these documents as he was of the view that the said copies were neither tendered in evidence nor formally proved. Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jauharabad, and the Additional Com missioner (Revenue) Sargodha Division, however, took judicial notice of the contents of the said documents which were present on the record and found that as per contents of the said documents, the respondents were proved to be the landlord, vis‑a‑vis the petitioners, the tenants who admittedly had not paid the rent to the respondents. Keeping in view the scope of the enquiry contemplated by rule 4 (3) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules 1977, judicial notice of the documents on the record of the ejectment suits could justifiably be taken of as copies of Jamabandi entries and copies of Khasri Girdawari entries being certified copies of public record did not require any formal proof. Presumption of. correct ness is also attached to Jamabandi entries. In Nathey Khan v. Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others (P L D 1961 B 196) reliance was placed on the contents of the documents which were not exhibited but were placed on record and were otherwise admissible in evidence.

10. Otherwise too, the findings of fact as to the existence of relation ship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the non‑payment of rent by the tenants to the landlord recorded by the learned Assistant Com missioner/Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) in their impugned orders, cannot be called in question in exercise of Writ jurisdiction of this Court particularly when the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect. In Sadiq Hussain Qureshi v‑. Federa tion of Pakistan and others (P L D 1979 Lah. 1) ; it was held that High Court in its Writ jurisdiction confines itself to determining whether Tribunal concerned possessed jurisdiction to go into question before it and if in doing so it transgressed limit of its lawful, authority. It was further held that High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal and decide whether evidence sufficed for upholding the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal concerned.

11. In the light of what has been said above, there is no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners to assail the impugned orders passed by Assistant Commissioner/Collector Jaubarabad and the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha Division, Sargodha. In this view of the matter, the under consideration four Constitutional Peti tions detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment are dismissed with no orders as to costs. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.