' These are eight revision petitions against the eight separate orders of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur Division, dated 14.10-1980, whereby the eight revision petitions filed against the orders of the Collector, Sub-Division, Minchinabad, dated 15-5-1980 were accepted with observation that as the petitioners were reported to have been ejected from the suit land, they were at liberty to pursue their cases for the restoration of their tenancy before a Revenue Court/Revenue Officer. Of competent jurisdiction.
2. As in these eight revision petitions the wording of the eight impugned orders is similar and as same law point is involved in these revision petitions, these are being decided by this one order.
3. The facts of the cases, as given in the impugned orders, are that Shah Muhammad son of Rehman, petitioner, filed two suits for ejectment of Suleman and Goman, respondents. Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Hussain petitioners filed a suit for ejectment of Suleman, respondent.
Muhammad Shafi, etc. Petitioners filed a suit for ejectment of Muhammad Zakir, respondent.
Muhammad Shafi, petitioner, filed a suit for ejectment of Nawab, respondent, Abdul Ghani, petitioner, filed two suits for ejectment of Abdul Sattar and Jalal Din, respondents, and Muhammad Khan, etc., petitioners, filed a suit for ejectment of Suleman, respondent, from the tenancy held by them because they had defaulted in making the payment of rent of the suit land to them. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Minchinabad, decreed all the suits of respondents vide judgments and decree, dated 2-1-1980. The respondents in all these cases preferred appeals before the A.C./Collector, Minchinabad, who upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and dismissed the appeals vide orders, dated 15-5-1980. Against those orders the respondents filed eight appeals in the Court of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur Division. The counsel for the respondents argued before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) that in the light of observations and conclusions of this Court in case titled Akbar etc. v. Mst. Sarwar Sultan (1), suit for ejectment should have been dismissed straightaway because the landlord was bound to first establish default and refusal on the part of the tenants in making the payment of rent in a competent revenue Court. As this procedure had not been followed, the orders justifying the ejectment of the respondents, from the tenancy held by them was not maintainable. The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), vide eight impugned orders, dated 14-10-1980, accepted the revisions setting aside the orders of the lower Courts. In the last paragraphs of the impugned orders he observed that as the respondents were reported to have been ejected from the suit land, they were at liberty to pursue their cases for the restoration of their tenancy before a revenue Court/revenue officer of competent jurisdiction. Hence these eight revision petitions.
4. The counsel for the petitioners argued that Additional Commissioner (Revenue) had set aside concurrent findings of the lower Courts without proper, legal and factual justification and that he failed to pass alders in the revision petitions within 30 days of the calling of the record as required by the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules,.
1977. The counsel further argued that the Additional Commissioner misapplied the authority of this Court in Akbar, etc. v. Mst. Sarwar Sultan as the facts of that case were quite different from the facts of these cases. The counsel contended that the impugned orders were not speaking orders as the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) had set aside the concurrent findings of both the. Lower Courts without cogent reasons. The Additional Commissioner failed to take into consideration the factum of the petitioners having obtained the possession in pursuance of the decrees of the lower Courts and as such he had acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.
5. The counsel for the petitioners argued with reference to the case cited in PLD 1980 Rev. 7 (Punjab), that it was correct that a landowner could not combine, in a single suit, prayer for the recovery of arrears and for ejectment. However, he argued that, according to the present law, a landowner had two options open to him in case of default in payment of rent by a tenant. The landowner could either sue the tenant for recovery of arrears of rent under the Tenancy Act or he could, under paragraph 25 of M. L. It No, 115, sue a tenant for ejectment for default in payment of rent. In the latter case it was not necessary for him to first file a separate suit to establish the default and then file a second suit for ejectment. It was argued that a landowner could straightaway file a suit for ejectment under provisions of paragraph 25 of M. L. R. No,
115. He contended that in such cases the provisions of section 42 of the Tenancy Act were not applicable.
The counsel, therefore, pleaded, that since the default had been established the impugned order should be set aside and the ejectment order restored. The counsel {{FOOT NOTE}}
6. (1) PLD 1980 Rev. (Pb.) 7 {{FOOT NOTE}} prayed for the acceptance of all the eight revision petitions by setting aside the impugned orders, dated 14-10-198u passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Bahawalpur Division, and for the restoration of the orders and decrees of the Assistant Collector, as confirmed by the A.C./Collector.
6. The counsel for the respondents argued that these revision petitions were not competent in this Court and that the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) had rightly accepted the revision petitions vide thy impugned orders. The counsel prayed that the impugned orders be maintained and the revision petitions be dismissed.
7. I have considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower Courts. s have also perused the cases referred to in PLD 1980 Rev. 7 (Punjab), PLD 1980 Rev. 353 and Ghulam dasul v. Additional Commissioner Revenue, Punjab (1), decided in Writ Petition No, 11897/1980, decided on 17-1-1982.
8. The counsel for the petitioners in support of his arguments on point of law, had referred to P L 13 1980 Rev.
353. It appears that a contrary finding has been given by the Lahore High Court in its order, dated 17-1-1982 reported in Ghulam Rasul v. Additional Commissioner Revenue, Lahore. In view of this position this Court does not find its way to review its order, dated 30-7-1978, passed in R.
0. R. No, 114 of 1976-77, Akbar, etc. v. Mst. Sarwar Sultan. In the present case since default and refusal to pay the arrears of rent have not been properly established in a suit, the order of ejectment on this ground was not in accordance with law. Consequently having no force, the eight revision petitions are dismissed. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1982 CLC 1404 {{FOOT NOTE}} 111111.1111110