1. ' MUNIB AKHTAR, J.--- This revision raises a short but interesting point with regard to section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the "2005 Act"). The question arises in the following circumstances.
2. ' The applicant states that she is the owner of a house situated at City Survey No,E-229 Nawa Goth No,6 Shikarpur (the "House"), which property was acquired by her in 2008 and of which she was in possession at all material items. It is stated that sometime after the applicant acquired ownership and possession of the House, the respondent No,1, who is her husband's brother, came to her and requested that since his own house was under construction he may be granted use of a part of the House for a few days. The applicant, in the circumstances, readily acceded to this request and the respondent and his family moved into a half portion (comprising of one room, kitchen bathroom and other basic facilities) which had been made over to him. The applicant states that after about one month she requested the respondent to vacate the portion that had been made over to him, but he asked for one additional month and the applicant also acceded to this request. However, when that month elapsed and the applicant again asked the respondent to leave the premises, the latter allegedly claimed that he was in possession of the House and forcibly dispossessed the applicant despite intervention of some persons. On these facts, the applicant filed a complaint under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the 2005 Act before the Sessions Judge, Sukkur which was duly transferred to the Vth Additional Sessions Judge (being direct Complaint No,33 of 2009) for disposal. By means of the impugned order dated 8-8-2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that on the facts as stated by the applicant herself, namely, that she had herself willingly granted permission to the respondent to use half portion of the house, and thus allowed him entry and access to the same, no offence under section 3 of 2005 Act was made out and he accordingly dismissed the complaint.
3. ' Being aggrieved by the afore-said dismissal, the applicant has filed the present revision application.
4. 'Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had materially erred in law in coming to the conclusion that no case was made out under section 3 of the 2005 Act. He submitted that although only a half portion of the House had been made over to the respondent No,1, he had illegally grabbed control of the entire house and thus, prima facie, an offence under section 3 of the 2005 Act had been made out for which the learned Additional Sessions Judge was obligated to take action in accordance with the procedure laid down in the said Act. The order of dismissal therefore merited being set aside, and learned counsel prayed that the matter be remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for further proceedings in accordance with law.
5. ' Learned A.P.-G. Opposed the revision, and submitted that since the applicant had herself admittedly allowed the respondent No,1 to enter upon the property, even if as alleged, he subsequently refused to vacate the same or attempted to oust the applicant from the house, no offence under section 3 of the 2005 Act was made out, since one of the basic ingredients, i,e,, entry upon immovable property without lawful authority, was admittedly missing in the present case. In this connection he placed reliance on Satan Kumar v. Muhammad Yousif 2009 P.Cr.LJ 1186. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 made submissions along with the same lines as the learned A.P.-G., and both prayed that the revision be dismissed.
6. ' In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant sought to distinguish the authority relied up by the learned A.P.-G. On the ground that in that case, possession of the entire property had been handed over by the owner, whereas in the present case it was only a half portion of the house that was made over to the respondent by the applicant.
7. ' In my view, the matter turns on the proper interpretation of section 3 of the 2005 Act. Subsection
(1) of section 3 states as follows:--- "No one shall enter into or upon any property to dispossess, grab, control or occupy it without having any lawful authority to do so with the intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy the property from owner or occupier of such property."
8. ' Before proceeding further, certain terms as defined in the 2005 Act may also be noted. Section 2(e) defines "property" simply as meaning immovable property, while clauses (c) and (d) respectively of the same section define an "occupier" as meaning the person who at the relevant time was in lawful possession of the property in question, and the "owner" as meaning the person who actually owned the property at the relevant time.
9. Although section 3(1) is somewhat inartistically worded, in my view its ingredients or elements are as follows:--
(a) The accused enters into or upon any property,
(b) without having any lawful authority to do so,
(c) with intention of dispossession of, or grabbing, controlling, or occupying the property from,
(d) the owner or occupier of the property.
10. ' In the present case of course, the applicant was both the owner and the occupier of the house. It is trite law that all the ingredients or elements must be made out before it is established that the offence has been committed by the accused person. If even one of the ingredients or elements is missing, then no offence is made out.##TE It is an admitted position that the respondent No,1 entered the House after being permitted to do so by the applicant, i,e,, owner/ occupier. In other words, the admitted position is that the respondent did have lawful authority to enter upon the property.##TE# Learned counsel for the applicant however vehemently argued that the permission that had been accorded in this regard related only to the half portion of the House, and that the respondent committed an offence under section 3 of the 2005 Act when he allegedly ousted the applicant from the remaining half of the House. This according to him, was the essential feature distinguishing the applicant's case from the position in the case relied upon by the learned A.P.-G.
11. In my view, if an immovable property can, and has been, divided into (even if only informally), or can be regarded as comprising of, two or more distinct parts, and the accused has been put in possession of only one of those parts, and thereafter, without having any lawful authority to do so, enters into or upon the remaining part or parts, then it could be said that the first two ingredients (elements (a) and (b)) of section 3 of 2005 Act have been made out.##TE If, in such a situation, the remaining ingredients are also found to exist, then an offence under section 3 may be made out. For instance, if in the case of agricultural land, the owner/occupier divides the same into two or more parts and gives permission to the accused to enter into only one such part, and thereafter the accused attempts, without having lawful authority to do so, to enter upon the remaining part or parts, then the first two ingredients of the offence may be made out. Another instance of the first two ingredients being made out could be of a house comprising of two floors i,e, a ground floor and a first floor (whether with or without a common entrance), and the owner/occupier grants permission to the accused to enter into or upon one floor only, and the accused thereafter, without having lawful authority to do so, enters upon the remaining floor. In these situations (which are intended only to be illustrative and not exhaustive), it is possible that the first two ingredients of the offence under section 3 are found to be made out, and if the remaining ingredients are also found to be applicable, then the offence under that section may be made out.
12. ' Where however, the immovable property in question cannot, or has not, been divided into two or more distinct parts, or cannot be regarded as comprising of two or more such parts, or if permission to enter into or upon any portion of the property is, in effect, permission to enter into or upon the whole of the property, then it cannot be said that the accused, by entering upon different parts of the property, has committed an offence under section 3 of 2005 Act. The reason is that in such a situation, the first two ingredients of the offence are not made out. It is precisely this situation that prevailed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The House comprised one composite unit. It was not divided into, and could not be regarded as comprising two or more distinct parts. By granting permission to the respondent to enter the House and use one room and other facilities therein, the applicant in effect gave him permission to enter upon the entire property. The close family relationship between the applicant and the respondent No,1 must also be kept in mind, since it is highly unlikely that in such circumstances, the respondent and his family were required to restrict themselves to only one part of the House. In such a situation therefore, it cannot be said that by not limiting himself to the portion made over to him, but also entering upon the remaining portion of the House, the respondent had committed an offence under section 3 of the 2005 Act. In other words, it seems to me that while in appropriate circumstances, as noted above, it may be possible that the accused was limited only to that portion of the immovable property as made over to him, the present situation is one where, in allowing the respondent No,1 to enter upon a part of the House, the applicant, in effect, accorded him permission to enter upon the whole of the property. In this situation, an offence under section 3 of the 2005 Act cannot be said to have been out.
13. ' It follows that in my view, on the facts as stated by the applicant herself, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct in coming to the conclusion that no offence had been made out under section 3 of the 2005 Act. He was therefore entitled to dismiss the applicant's complaint. It follows further that since the learned Additional Sessions Judge had come to the correct legal conclusion on the facts as made out before him, no occasion arises for any interference by this Court with the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision application fails, and is hereby dismissed.##TE#