1980 (PLP)

Papas. 2(7) & 25-Definition of word `person' in para. 2(7) of Regulation--Excludes a local authority from its ambit-Town Committee being a local authority, respondent tenant of such committee, held, cannot rely upon para. 25 for protection.-[Words and phrases]. Mian Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh for Appellant. Mian Abdul Latif for Respondent. Date of hearing : 11th July, 1979. The respondent obtained a lease of the property in dispute from Town Committee Sangla Hill, Sheikhupura in the year 1972 f11r a period of three years. After the expiry of the period he filed a suit claiming that in view of para. 25 of the Martial Law Regulation 115 he was a protected tenant and could not be ejected from the area except on the grounds given in that papa. This was dismissed by the Learned trial Court on 2-12-1978 but in appeal it was decreed by Mr. Nusrat Hussain Qureshi, Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura on 6-3-1979.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that para. 25 is not applicable to Government's tenant in view of Taj Muhammad v. Punjab Province (W. P. 980 of 1976, decided on 19-12-1978). It was held in that case that the definition of the tenant under the Tenancy Act has been extended by the Land Commission to the Martial Law Regulation

115. The word `tenant' denied in the Tenancy Act as a person holding land under another person which means that a landlord must be a person. The word `person' is defined in section 2(7) of the Regulation. It was held that the Government is not a person under the Regulation and as such its tenant is not a tenant within the meaning of para. 25 of the Regulation and is not accordingly protected. 3. faced with this situation the learned counsel for respondent argued that the land in dispute belongs to the Town Committee Sangla Hill Sheikhupura and not to the Government. Though it appears clear that the Town Committee is administering the Government's land and in that capacity has let it out to the respondent but even if it is assumed that the Town Committee is the landlord the respondent cannot rely upon para. 25 since the definition of the word 'person' in section 2(7) of the Regulation excludes 1 4 a local authority from its ambit. It was on this ground that it was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Ahmad Din v. Khushi Muhammad (P L D 1979 Lah.410) that the Thai Development Authority is not a person and as such its tenants are not protected by papa. 25 of the Regulation. This principle will apply to the respondents case also. The learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by ignoring these points.

4. I, therefore, allow this petition without any order as to costs, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge and restore the decree of the learned trial Court. Petition allowed.