' The petitioner, who is a land-owner filed two separate suits against the respondent No, 3 his tenant, for recovery of his share of the produce and for his ejectment before A. C. I. Chiniot. Bcth the suits succeeded and were decreed on 19th August, 1978. The respondent No, 3 filed two appeals before the Collector, challenging both the orders. His appeal with regard to the recovery of the share of the produce was rejected and the decree of the trial Court maintained. The other appeal, however, succeeded in view of a judgment of the Board of Revenue in Akbar etc. v. Mst. Sarwar Sultan (1). The petitioner then filed a second appeal but finding the same as not maintainable has now filed the present writ petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that according to para. 25-A of the Land Reforms Ordinance, 1972, a tenant can be ejected if it is proved by a competent Court that he made default in payment of the rent. It is provided therein that "A tenant shall not be ejected from the tenancy unless it is established in Revenue Court that he has (a) failed to pay rent in accordance with the terms and conditions of tenancy." There are thus only two requirements in this para
(i) failed to pay rent in accordance with the terms of tenancy
(ii) the decision to the above effect should be that of a Revenue Court."
3. Para. 3 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 lays down that :- "Regulation to override other laws, etc.-The provisions of this Regulation, and any rule or order made thereunder, shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law or any order or decree of a Court or Tribunal or other authority, or in any rule of custom or usage, or in any contract, instrument, deed or other document."
' The result of a reading the above two provisions together is that a tenant can be ejected if a Revenue Court finds that he failed to pay the rent due A despite anything to the contrary contained in any other law.
4. In any case even section 42 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 does not lay down any restriction to eject a person in pursuance to a decree of ejectment. Section 42 reads as under :-- "Restriction on ejectment.-A tenant shall not be ejected otherwise than in execution of a decree for ejectment, except in the following cases, namely,-
(a) when a decree for an arrear of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed against him and remains unsatisfied ;
(b) when the tenant has not a right of occupancy and does not hold for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order of competent authority."
5. A reading of the above section would show that though a person! Can be ejected in pursuance to a decree of ejectment, he cannot be ejected if (0 PLD 1980 Rev. 7 there is only a decree for arrears of rent, or if the tenant has neither a right of occupancy nor a fixed term etc. The procedure for the two exceptions given in sections 43 and 44 has to be followed.
Reference be also made t Maula v. Jewan Bakhsh etc. (1) wherein a Financial Commissioner opined as under :- "The Collector has doubts whether the landlords could avoid the procedure under section 45, but he decided the point correctly in the landlords' favour. Section 77(3) (e) provides distinctly for suits by a landlord to eject a tenant and it is clear that a landlord has his choice of either procedure. He can either proceed by notice under section 43 or he can, as in the present case, bring a suit for ejectment, without previous notice, under section 77(3) (e)."
6. As stated above, the petitioner had both the decrees in his favour. Consequently, he could either execute the decree for ejectment under the main provision of section 42 or take advantage of the other decree and proceed under sections 43 and 44 of the Tenancy Act, independent of the other right. Sections 43 and 44 read as under :- "43. Application to Revenue Officer for ejectment.-In any such case as is mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) of the last foregoing section, the landlord may apply to a Revenue Officer for the ejectment of the tenant in the case mentioned in the former clause or for the service on the tenant of a notice of ejectment in the case mentioned in the latter clause.
44. Ejectment for failure to satisfy decree for arrear of rent.-(1) On receiving the application in any such case as is mentioned in clause (a) of section 42, the Revenue Officer shall, after such inquiry with respect to the existence of the arrear as is necessary, cause a notice to be served on the tenant, stating the date of the decree and the amount due there under, and informing him that if he does not pay that amount to the Revenue Officer within fifteen days from receipt of the notice he will be ejected from the land.
(2) If the amount is not so paid, the Revenue Officer shall, subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the payment of compensation, order the ejectment of the tenant unless good cause is shown to the contrary."
7. The import of the two sections referred to above is that in case of a situation covered by clauses
(a) and (b) of the section 42 a decree-holder seeking ejectment should apply to the Collector. He will issue a show-cause notice in accordance with that section to the tenant and in case he again makes a default an ejectment may follow.
8. The fact that these are different kinds of actions and there can be separate proceedings about it, can be further verified or ascertained from the grouping of various cases under section 77 of the Tenancy Act. Sub-clauses (e), ( f) and (n) of clause (ii) to the Proviso to section 77 may be reproduced below with advantage :- "(e) suits by a landlord to eject a tenant ;
(f) suits by a tenant under section 45 to contest liability to ejectment, when notice of ejectment has been served ;
(n) suits by a landlord for arrears of rent or the money equivalent of rent, or for sums recoverable under section 14."
(1) 5 P R 1896 (Rev.)
9. The above discussion, therefore, clearly shows that the right of a person holding a decree for ejectment is independent of his other right under a decree for the arrears of rent. The two rights, therefore, can operate separately and independent of each other. The corollary of the above is that if a land-owner files only a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent, he can execute the same decree for ejectment also, with a further procedure. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Collector is against law and so liable to be set aside.
' For the reasons given above, the impugned order of the Collector is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the petitioner is entitled to get the same decree executed straightaway to get the respondent ejected. There will be no order as to costs.