' This civil revision under section 115 of the C. P. C. Has been filed by Ghulam Hussain to challenge the validity of the appellate order of a learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar dated 17-5-1983 whereby he accepted the appeal of respondent and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10-11-1982 in respect of a dispute over tenancy of agricultural land.
2. The brief facts are that there was a sale witnessed through a deed dated 16-4-1978. The vendee was Ghulam Hussain in respect of area measuring 6 kanals 6 marlas. The respondent tenant Muhammad Shah filed a preemption suit claiming the property on the strength of his tenancy. This suit of respondent Muhammad Shah was dismissed by the trial Court, but on appeal he succeeded in obtaining a decree for possession through pre-emption to the extent of 10 marlas of land. This order was not assailed any further and both the learned counsel agree that this has attained finality. In so far as Ghulam Hussain is concerned, he obtained possession pursuant to the sale, but in the process, he evicted Muhammad Shah from the land without having recourse to due process of law. The, first eviction was restored under the orders of revenue authorities designated under para. 25 of M. L. R. 115 (Land Reforms Regulation, 1972). Muhammad Shah thereafter once again received a similar treatment and this time, too, he approached the designated authorities for the redress of his grievances. He succeeded in obtaining the order of restoration of his possession. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed on 2-1-1982 by the Collector. Still not satisfied, the petitioner approached the revisional Court i. e. Commissioner who dismissed the revision petition on 16-3-1982 holding that it was not competent because such a right had only been granted to a tenant according to Notification No, LH-III-393-77/947, dated 9-3-1977.
3. The petitioner in the above situation, then had recourse to the Civil Courts by filing a suit for permanent injunction in order to avoid the effect of order of restoration of possession passed by the revenue authorities under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 10-11-1982. Muhammad Shah then filed an appeal before a learned Additional District Judge at Bhakkar who accepted the same on 17-5-1983 and reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissed the suit. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge was that in view of the provisions of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts was expressly barred and the same was the position if the matter was viewed in the light of Land Revenue Act, 1967 ; hence this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge suffered from serious infirmity because no fetters were placed in the way of petitioner from approaching the Civil Courts for determination of question of status of respondent since in his view the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 would only arise if it was a case of admitted tenancy. This plea is being opposed by the learned counsel for respondent.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the matter stands concluded as a result of enunciation of law made by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Jehangir v. Malla etc. (I). In the precedent case it has been laid down that an examination of para. 25 of the regulation and the procedure prescribed leaves no manner of doubt that it deals with rights of tenants. It is, inter alia, further held that the disturbance of the rights of a tenant may take place not necessarily always by the landlord. It may be by others either at the behest or for the benefit of the landlord. 1 here are no express words in para. 25 suggesting that it is only the landlord who has to be proceeded against.
(1) 1981 SCMR 1146 ' It was father held that this provision cannot be so narrowly interpreted as to confine the proceedings always to be between landlord and tenant. The substance of controversy will have to be seen in order to determine what is the right of the individual and in what capacity he is being subjected to inroad or violation. If it be as a tenant and tenant's rights guaranteed under the Regulation for which a separate forum has been provided and a summary procedure as well, then even if the intruder be not strictly speaking a landlord, the proceedings will be competent before the designated authorities.
6. In the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court, on examining the facts of present case, it appears that the matter has been determined by the competent authorities who held that the respondent was a tenant of the land in question and that he was forcibly evicted therefrom. The learned counsel for petitioner was unable to deny before me that the respondent was not in cultivating possession of the land in question as a tenant at the time of his purchasing the property. It follows as a natural corollary that by virtue of Land Reforms Regulation, jurisdiction of civil Courts to interfere with competently instituted proceedings and the lawful judgments rendered would stand ousted. The view taken by the learned Additional District Judge, therefore, appears to be correct and in conformity with the legal position which governs the facts of present case. There is thus no scope for interference with the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge and the case is not covered by any of the clauses of section 115 of Civil Procedure Code.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the land is question to respondent after the harvest of current Rabi crop.
The learned counsel for respondent is agreeable to this.
8. The result is that this revision fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.