P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887)

S. 70‑Provisions mandatory‑Framing of issue for determination of compensation, essential, even though tenant has not claimed any compensation in his written statement. This is a revision petition under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and the facts, briefly, are that the respondent‑landlord instituted a suit under section 77 (3) (e) of the Act for ejectment of the petitioners‑tenants from the land in dispute for non‑payment of rent and on the ground of self cultivation. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sialkot, decreed the suit on 28‑2‑1962 in favour of the respondent‑landlord. In appeal filed by the tenants the Collector, Sialkot interfered and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the main ground that the Assistant Collector had not recorded the evidence in his own hand and it was taken down by the Court officials. In second appeal, however, the learned Additional Commissioner, Lahore reversed the order passed by the Collector and restored that of the Assistant Collector. A revision has now been filed by the petitioners- tenants. Two main points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, firstly, that the petitioners had paid the arrears of rent to the respondent in the trial Court, hence no default had occurred which could justify their ejectment. Secondly, that the trial Court omitted to direct the petitioners to file a statement of their claim to compensation for improvement as required under section 70 of the Tenancy Act and consequently failed to comply with a mandatory provision of the law as the Court did not determine the amount of compensation due to them. As regards the first point, the very fact of payment of arrears of rent in the trial Court after the institution of the suit is enough proof that the default did occur for which the trial Court rightly passed a decree for ejectment against them. Regarding the second point, it is the duty of the trial Court under section 70 of the Act to direct the tenant to file a state ment of his claim for compensation on account of improvements or for disturbance and of the grounds thereof. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the petitioners themselves did not mention any thing about compensation in their written statement, the trial Court was not under any obligation to ask them to file a statement of their claim. This argument can not be accepted. The provisions of section 70 of the Tenancy Act are mandatory and it is essential to frame an issue regarding compensation in every suit by a landlord to eject a tenant and arrive at a decision on the point, even though no claim is made and there is no evidence to show that it is due. I would, therefore, hold that failure to call for this statement is a material irregularity warranting interference a revision. In the circumstances I would accept the revision petition and remand the case to the trial Court with the direction that an issue regarding compensation for improvements should be framed and a decision arrived at on this issue. K. M. A. Petition accepted.