P L D (Rev (PLP)

AKHTER HUSSAIN, F. C.‑This is an application for revision of the order passed by the Collector Shahpur at Sargodha dated 11th July, 1951, by which a petition for cancellation of the order of Assistant Collector Shahpur decreeing a suit for the ejectment of the petitioner was dismissed. The facts are that the respondent landlord had instituted a suit in the Court of the Assistant Collector for the ejectment of the petitioner who was his tenant under section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent on 15th June, 1951. This decree was challenged by a revision petition in the Court of the Collector on the ground that under the provisions of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950, it was ultra vires, as under section 7 of that Act the jurisdiction of any Court has been barred. The Collector however held that the res pondent had sued the petitioner for ejectment from 25 acres of land which he wanted to cultivate himself and had no other land under his personal cultivation. The provisions of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950, have no application, as the case of the respondent was covered by the proviso to clause (4) of section 3 of that Act. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court again on almost similar grounds as before the Collector. A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the respondent that no revision petition lay before the Collector or before this Court under the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, 1950, against a decree passed by a Revenue Court under the Tenancy Act. It was also pointed out that the petitioner should not have come in revision to this Court when he had the right of appeal to the Collector as well as to the Commissioner. I decided to hear the petition on merits in view of the legal issues raised. The main point in issue is whether a Revenue Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment by a landlord in view of the provisions of section 3 read with section 7 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act. Sub -clause (1) of section 3 of that Act provides that no tenant shall be ejected from his tenancy except on four ground mentioned. There is a proviso that when a landlord does not have under his personal cultivation an area equal to 25 acres his right to eject any tenant from such portion of the tenancy, as with the area already in his possession will make 25 acres, will not be affected. This clearly shows that the existing right of the landlord to eject a tenant, whether under the Tenancy Act, or any other law, has been excepted from the purview of section 3 of Act XIII of 1950. Section 7 of this Act only bars the jurisdiction of Courts in matters which a Revenue Officer is empowered by the Act to dispose of. Under clause (2) of section 3, an application for the ejectment of a tenant may be made by the landlord on any one or more of the four grounds mentioned in subsection (1). As already mentioned, the proviso is not one of the grounds and, therefore, there is no bar to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court in this case. This view is further strengthened by clause (6) of section 3, which contemplates that under the proviso to subsection (1), a landlord can take possession by process of law (which may include a decree of a Revenue Court) or other wise, of any land comprised in a tenancy. In any case, the proviso under subsection (1) clearly and uneqivocally preserves the existing rights of the landlord to eject a tenant, and since section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act has not been repealed, his right to sue under that section also subsists. Under sec tion 4 of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act, sections 44 and 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act have been made ineffective, and therefore section 77 of the latter Act was the only section under which a landlord could enforce his rights. I, therefore, find that the Collector was right in rejecting the revision petition which is also hereby rejected. Order Announced. A. H. Revision rejected.