P L D 1965 W (PLP)
MIR ALAM‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MIR ALAM‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Landlord and tenant‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Landlord and tenant‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (MIR ALAM‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Usman Ali Shah for Petitioner.
- Sardar Bahadur Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ejectment order for non‑payment of full rent‑Entries in khasra girdawari showing rent amount only to extent of four times land revenue but that in Jamabandi Rs. 34‑5‑0 --Latter entry given effect to and tenant, held, rightly ejected.
Judgment & Decree
Ejectment order for non‑payment of full rent‑Entries in khasra girdawari showing rent amount only to extent of four times land revenue but that in Jamabandi Rs. 34‑5‑0 --Latter entry given effect to and tenant, held, rightly ejected. Usman Ali Shah for Petitioner. Sardar Bahadur Khan for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 6th of August 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed but it was upheld that the suit against Mst. Jane had abated. The facts of the case are that the land in dispute was previously with the Government but, on the 30th of October 1961, the respondent became its proprietor. On 6‑8‑1962, he brought a suit for the ejectment of the petitioner. The Assistant Collector decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The petitioner went in appeal to the Collector but it was dismissed. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner but it was also rejected. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has argued that this is a case for interference on the ground that the evidence was not properly appreciated. He relies on the entries of the khasra girdawari and contends that the petitioner is entitled to only four times the land revenue. This entry, however, is contradicted by the entry in the jamabandi where it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 34‑5‑
0. This was the claim of the respondent, and was rightly accepted. I, therefore, see no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no justification for any interference at the second revisional stage. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby: A. H. Petition dismissed.