1980 PLP 360 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑Leave to appeal is sought by a land‑ lord, from the order dated 28th April, 1979 passed by the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent's writ petition against his eviction by Revenue Authorities was allowed. The petitioner had purchased agricultural land from one Ahmad Nawaz. Khasra girdawari contained the name of the respondent as tenant on that land. The petitioner made application for the correction of this entry because according to him the respondent was a `lessee' and not a `tenant'. After field enquiry, the petitioner's application was allowed on 18th September, 1974 and respondent's name was entered as lessee. His appeal was dismissed on 7th June, 1975. His revision before the Board of Revenue was dismissed on 9th August. 1975. 1n the meanwhile, according to the petitioner an order of eviction having been passed against the res pondent on 8th July, 1975, he was dispossessed on 14th July, 1975. The respondent challenged the orders regarding change of entry from `tenant' to 'lessee' and the eviction order dated 8th July, 1975, in the High Court through a writ petition. It was contended before the High Court from the respondent side that 'the question whether the petitioner is a 'Thekedar' or a tenant would not entitle the respondent to eject him and that his dispossession on the basis of the entries in the Khasra Girda wari as `Thekedar' is without lawful authority. Reliance was placed on the case of Muhammad Yousaf (P L D 1970 Lab, 328). A learned Single Judge held that the ejectment of the respondent on the mere ground that he is a lessee was without lawful authority, because he was also like a tenant at will protect ed under clause 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 : provided "he was actually cultivating the disputed land". Accordingly, it was also declared that he was "entitled to be put back in possession" under the relevant law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction could not interfere with the correction of entry by the Revenue Authorities in the Khasra Girdawari; that there was no prayer in the writ petition for the restoration of possession to the respon dent‑the direction in that behalf was unjustified because the respondent could seek remedy under section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act ; and that the case of Mohammad Yousaf is not relevant to the facts of this case in the alternative, it did not lay down correct law. We do not agree with the learned counsel that the High Court ha interfered with the correction of the entry in the Khasra Girdawari mad by the Revenue Authorities. The same has been left intact. The impugn ed order proceeds on the assumption that the respondent is a lessee, but it has been held that in case he is in cultivating possession, notwithstanding his position as a lessee, he could not be evicted because the protection under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 for a tenant would also be avail able to such a lessee. Section 50 of the Tenancy Act provides remedy to an ejected `tenant' under certain conditions to file a suit for recovery of possession. In this case the respondent could not file the suit because as found by the Revenue Authorities, he was not a `tenant'. The High Court, in these circumstances, could declare the order of his eviction as without lawful authority ; that being so, restoration of possession was left to be dealt with in accordance with the relevant law by the authority concerned. We asked the learned counsel to show any law or authority, under which the respondent could be evicted without due process of law. He is unable to justify the order of eviction dated 8th July, 1975. That being so, it is not necessary in this case to examine the correctness or otherwise of the view held in the case of Mohammad Yousaf. It is not a fit case for grant of leave. This petition is dismissed: Petition dismissed,