P L D (PLP)
MUQADDAR SHAH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus INAYATULLAH KHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUQADDAR SHAH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus INAYATULLAH KHAN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Landlord and tenant‑, (b) Landlord and tenant |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Landlord and tenant‑, (b) Landlord and tenant as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (PLP)?
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: P L D (PLP) (MUQADDAR SHAH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus INAYATULLAH KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Samad for Petitioners.
- Syed Yunis Shah for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Produce rent estimated at half the produce where tenant had not proved that he was paying land revenue and abiana dues but at one fourth of produce where, in subsequent case tenant was paying such due Order of Assistant Collector not interfered with.
‑Produce rent‑ et‑of for payment by tenant, of land revenue and abiana‑Such dues not claimed to nave been paid by landlord‑Deemed to have been paid by tenant.
Judgment & Decree
‑Produce rent‑ et‑of for payment by tenant, of land revenue and abiana‑Such dues not claimed to nave been paid by landlord‑Deemed to have been paid by tenant. Abdul Samad for Petitioners. Syed Yunis Shah for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 27th of July 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that previously the land in dispute, was mortgaged but it was redeemed. After redemption, the respondent remained in possession. The petitioners sued the respondent for arrears of rent and the Assistant Collector gave a decree for one‑fourth of the produce on the ground that, as ' the respondent was paying land revenue and abiana, the petitioners could not claim more than one‑fourth of the produce. The petitioners went in appeal to the Collector, who accepted it and gave them half the produce. The respondents went in further appeal to the Commissioner who accepted it. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that, because A previously a decree was given to the petitioner for half the produce, the Assistant Collector should have given a decree for half the produce but not one‑fourth. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector shows that the previous decree was given for half the produce, because, at that time, the respondent had not proved that he was paying the land revenue and the abiana. The petitioners cannot, therefore, claim to get half the produce on the plea that the rent payable for the prec6d ing year was half the produce. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it has not been proved that the respondent had been paying the land revenue and the abiana. It is, however, conceded that the petitioner has never paid any land revenue and abiana in respect of the land in dispute. I, therefore, see no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any inter ference. The second revision fails and is dismissed. A. H. Petition dismissed.