' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--- This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 30-11- 2010 passed by Member (Judicial-I), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were cultivating the land measuring 6 kanals, 1 marla bearing Khasra No,3820/2096, Khewat No,562, situated in Mauza Harbanspura, Tehsil Cantt., District Lahore, as tenants. The respondents filed two suits before the Tehsildar/A.C. 1st Grade, Cantt., Lahore, for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioners. After hearing the parties the court decreed the suits in favour of the respondents vide his order dated 1- 3-2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed two appeals before the D.D.O.
(Revenue)/Collector, Cantt, Lahore, which were also dismissed on 12-9-2007. Feeling dissatisfied with the said-order, the petitioners filed appeals before the E.D.O. (Revenue), Lahore, who vide order dated 27-7-2010, dismissed the same and upheld the order dated 12-9-2007 passed by D.D.O.
(Revenue)/Collector, Cantt., Lahore.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the orders of both the learned courts below are absolutely illegal, unwarranted and against the facts of the case as they have not touched the legal aspects of the case. The D.D.O. (Revenue) and E.D.O. (Revenue) have failed to cater the arguments of the petitioners and have passed the non-speaking order on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Both the learned courts below have not appreciated the fact that the petitioners had not defaulted in the payment of rent to the respondents/owners of the land in question. Further argues that he moved an application before the Tehsildar, Cantt., Lahore, stating therein that the suit was not competent as the petitioner has been paying rent regularly.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the basic order passed by Tehsildar is without jurisdiction as suit could only be filed before Assistant Collector Grade-I while a Tehsildar falls in the category of Assistant Collector Grade-II. Therefore, basic orders as well as all subsequent orders up to Board of Revenue are liable to be set aside. He further argues that if the foundation of any matter is wrong, the entire superstructure raised over it is liable to be demolished. The other objection of learned counsel for the petitioners is that simultaneously two relives i,e, recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of tenant are not maintainable. This objection was never considered by all the forums below. Therefore, writ petition be allowed, impugned orders be set aside and the case of the petitioners be dismissed with cost throughout.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record highlights that respondents filed suit for arrears of rent before Tehsildar with powers of Collector Grade-I, who was very much competent to proceed with the matter, therefore, the order passed by Tehsildar is legal, binding and enforceable against the petitioners. The next objection of the petitioner that respondents Nos.2 to 6 filed suit for recovery of arrears and for ejectment at the same time is not maintainable, is misconceived as a landlord could seek the remedy of recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of tenant on the ground of default or non- payment of rent. There is no bar to collect both the remedies in one suit as already held by this court in case "Shah Hall and others v. Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Punjab and 5 others"
(2009 M LD 501).
7. The grounds raised in the writ petition were already agitated before the Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue and other revenue courts, who have dealt with the matter elaborately. The impugned order is well reasoned. There are concurrent findings of four courts below against the petitioners.
Even otherwise, the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted between the parties. All these matters could not b looked into in the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. This writ petition is devoid of any merit, same is dismissed in limine.