2000 PLP 1984 (MLD)

condition of payment of rent or ' r IG 1. ' by ' ~ ,~''~ ' to ' J~;~t; '. It was stated that ' ~J;,~ ' means not being in physical possession. ' f,~.'(; ', it was stated connotes being in physical possession of the land. It was on this score argued that respondent No.l is ' LJOb ' without possession. The petitioners, it was stated are ' r j .~t; ' with possession. It was averred that the aforesaid explanation clearly establishes that relationship of landlord and tenant was non‑existent between the patties. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to PLD 1982 Rev. 60, 1958 West Pakistan (Revenue) 167 and PLD 1950 Revenue 444.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. l stated that concurrent findings on facts by the lower Courts ought not to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. It was stated that arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are not in line with the facts of the case and law on the subject. , It was argued that the petitioners before having recourse to the Revenue authorities had themselves taken the matter to the civil Court where their suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed and appeal thereto was also rejected. It was averred that in the civil suit filed by the petitioners nine issues were framed and all were decided against the petitioners.

5. I have given careful consideration to‑ the arguments of the parties. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced below for facility of reference:‑‑ "After receipt of the record the case was fixed for arguments on 8th August, 1994. On the date and thereafter on two occasions the appellants sought adjournments. Today they again applied for the adjournment on the ground that their counsel had gone to Karachi. Various Advocates present in the Court told that counsel for the appellant was present in his chamber today. The arguments of the counsel for the respondents have been heard and record perused. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the appellant and the respondent. Consequently the appeal which has no force is rejected." This statement in the impugned order clearly reflects that learned Commissioner did not advert to the grounds given in the body of the appeal. There is no mention whether the appellants themselves in the absence of their counsel were given opportunity of hearing. The wilful absence of the counsel or his reluctance to argue the case cannot be made a ground to penalize the appellants. Principle of equity and natural justice‑ demand that adequate opportunity be provided to the appellants/petitioners to put forth their view point before the Court. Granting that the appellants may not have been equipped with sufficient skill to do so, the grounds given in the body of appeal ought to have been examined and clear determination given thereon. The impugned order in this revision petition, therefore, suffers from legal infirmity and as such cannot be maintained. The.order dated 8th May, 1995 of Commissioner. Sargodha Division, is set aside and the case is remanded to the Commissioner with the direction that in the eventuality that the petitioners are not able to produce their counsel, the grounds given in the body of appeal should be taken up for determination. Also the pleadings made before this Court by the petitioners given at para. 3 should be kept in view while deciding the case. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. H.B.T:/9/Rev. Order accordingly.