1989 PLP 1432 (SCMR)
NADIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1432 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NADIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Tenancy Act (XN7 of 1887)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1432 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Tenancy Act (XN7 of 1887)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1432 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1432 (SCMR) (NADIR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nawab Saeedullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23rd November, 1988 in Writ Petition No.1515 of 1987). ‑‑‑S.77(3)(e)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ejectment of tenant for non‑payment of rent‑‑Order of ejectment passed by Board of Revenue in revision‑‑Tenant's Constitutional petition against ejectment dismissed‑‑Tenant's contention, that. the order of Assistant Commissioner and that of Additional Commissioner to the effect that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties could not be proved, amounted to concurrent findings of fact of the two Revenue Courts which should not have been interfered with by Board of Revenue, was of no substance‑‑Tenant's father was recorded as tenant of landlord in the revenue record‑‑Board of Revenue had held that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood established betwccn the parties by virtue of rent decrec awarded in favour of landlord, which had attained finality‑‑Tenants failed to challenge the decree of payment of rent passed against them‑‑Leave refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 23rd November, 1988 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly the facts in this case are that Muhammad Siddiq respondent managed to obtain an order from the Revenue Court for the recovery of Rs.129.09 as rent against the petitioners as sons of Dhaman. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioners were dismissed hv the Collector and Additional Commissioncr..The petitioners die.' not challenge these orders any further an thus they became final. Later on the basis of the same orders father of Muhammad Siddiq respondent namely Abdul Aziz filed an application for decrement of the petitioners from the land under their cultivation on the ground of non‑payment of produce and for improper cultivation. This was resiste the petitioners. The application was dismissed by the Assistant Commissionar on the ground that Abdul Aziz failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. His appeal before the Additional Commissioner was dismissed but his revision before the Member Board of Revenue succeeded. Thereupon, the present petitioners filed AT petition which has been dismissed by the high Court as stated above. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the respondents had obtained the order for the recovery through fraud and misrepresentation and that therefore no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. His contention was that the order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Additional Commissioner to the effect that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties could not be proved amounted to concurrent findings of fact of the two Revenue Courts which should have not been interfered with by the Member Board of Revenue, out we do not find any substance in this argument. The petitioners are sons of Dhaman who is A recorded as tenant of the respondent in the revenue record. Besides that the Member Board of Revenue had held that the relationship of landlord and tenant stood established between the parties by virtue of rent degree awarded in favour of the respondent and which orders had attained finality. Furthermore, they did not file any civil suit to challenge the decree of the payment of rent passed against them. In the light of the above discussion we do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel. As a result this petition is dismissed. AA./N‑149/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.