P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MUKHTAR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUKHTAR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (MUKHTAR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner.
- Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Landlord and tenant‑Ejectment on basis of non‑payment of share of produce‑Tenant handing over share of produce to Mukhtar of landlord, who had been removed by that time, but tenant having no such knowledge‑‑No ejectment can be ordered.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner. Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 5th of August 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondents was accepted. The facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the ejectment of the respondents on the ground of non‑payment of rent. After hearing the parties A. C.II Grade rejected the application. The petitioner went in appeal‑to the Collector who accepted it. The respondents filed a second appeal to the Additional Commissioner, which was accepted. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is established on record that the respondents deposited‑ the share of the produce with Ghulam Rasul shopkeeper. The latter gave it to Said Ahmad who was formerly the Mukhtar of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has, however, contended that before Ghulam Rasul handed over the produce to Said Ahmad, the Mukhtarnama in favour of Said Ahmad had been cancelled and the cancellation had been announced in the press. On the basis of this technical consideration it is claimed that the respondents should pay the share of the produce to the petitioner again or it should be held that they did not pay the share of the produce. It is also conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were informed that Said Ahmad was their Mukhtar and that is why be bad been receiving the share of the produce. In a rural estate mere publication in the press is not sufficient. As the petitioner had intimated the appointment of Said Ahmad, who had given the land to the respondents, the petitioner should have informed the respondents about the withdrawal of the' power of attorney. Once the respondents have deposited the share of the produce with Ghulam Rasul and it was ultimately taken by Said Ahmad, it is now a matter between Said Ahmad and the petitioner. If Said Ahmad has not delivered the share of the produce to petitioner, he can take such legal action against him as is permissible. Obviously the respondents cannot be asked to make payment twice nor can be held guilty of non‑payment. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is perfectly justified. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.