1982 PLP 847 (CLC)

Mian Muhammad v. Ghulam Mustafa P L D 1973 S C 394 ref. (b) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 1M. L. R. 11151‑ ‑ 25 and Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950)‑Interpretation of statutes‑Words not defined in statutes‑Can be given meaning assigned to that term in a statute pari materia with such statute‑Word `tenant' not defined in Regulation have given meaning assigned to it in Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act. Interpretation of statutes]. Mian Muhammad v. Ghulam Mustafa P L D 1973 S C 394 ref. Ch: Bashir Ahmad for Petitioner. The petitioner was a lessee of the land in dispute for 1971‑

72. His case is that being a tenant he is protected from ejectment under para. 25 of M. L. R.

115. The word tenant is not defined in the regulation. By a notification dated Nil but published in the Gazette of Punjab, Part I on 11‑5‑1973 and issued with the approval of the President under sub‑para. (8) of para. 4 of the above Regulation, the definition of `tenant' as given in section 4(26) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 was extended to the above Regulation. Another notification dated 8‑6‑1973 was issued to clarify that `tenant' will not include a lessee, who is covered by the definition of `landlord' as given in subsection (12) of section 4 of the W. P. Land Revenue Act, 1967. The learned counsel contends that the word `tenant' having been defined in exercise of the powers conferred by para. 4(8) of the Regulation with the permission of the President this second notification is ultra vires. The reason urged by him in support of this plea is that this later notification did not have the approval of the President. This argument is without force. A tenant as per definition of that term in section 4(26) of the Land Revenue Act is a person who `holds land under another person'. This other person is a landlord which term includes ` lessee of a person under whom a tenant may hold land. What the Land Commission has done is only to interpret the word `tenant'. This interpreta tion and decision is obviously under para. 4(6) of M. L. R. 115 and is no only valid but is final. The learned counsel then argued on the strength of P L D 1973 S C 394 that if an expression used in a Statute is not defined then it can be given the meaning assigned to that term in a Statute which is in pari materia with the former Statute. He contended that on this principle the definition under the Punjab Tenancy Act should be applied. But this argument lost sight of the fact that para. 25 of M. L. R. gives protection to the tenants against ejectment. This provision is in part material only with the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act which includes lessees for a fix terms from its ambit and from the scope of tenant as defined therein Punjab Tenancy act does not protect the tenants on these lines. The decree is unexceptionable. The petition is dismissed. M.Y.M. Petition dismissed.