' This writ petition impugnes the order dated 21-8-1986 passed by respondent No, 1 to sine die adjourn the proceedings of a suit filed by the petitioners for ejectment of Fateh Muhammad respondent No, 2, due to the pendency of a suit for pre-emption filed by him.
2. It is, no doubt, correct that the pre-emption suit filed by respondent No, 2 cannot have any conceivable bearing on the claim for his ejectment maintained by the petitioners because there cannot be anything common in the two suits, so that if the tenant is ejected from the land in the meanwhile, on the basis of his liability for eviction incurred due to non-payment of rent, his suit for pre-emption will not suffer any setback and will 'still A remain liable to be decided either way, on its own merits. To this effect is the judgment in Niaz Ahmad and others v. Allah Diwaya and others (1).
Hence, the determination of the suit filed by the petitioners for the ejectment of Fateh Muhammad respondent could not be held up for the mere reason of the pendency of the suit for pre-emption filed by him against the petitioners.
3. Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1F87 provides a remedy of revision against such orders of unlawful exercise of jurisdiction. Petitioner have admittedly not had resort to that remedy, therefore, I have not been persuaded to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under the circumstance of this case to quash the impugned order because admission of this writ petition to hearing will not merely unduly prolong the proceeding maintained in the appropriate forum but will also involve unnecessary expenditure and waste of time of all concerned.
4. Learned counsel, however, submits that rules framed under the Land Reforms Regulation do not confer a right of revision on a landlord and has invited attention to the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977, .Framed on 10-6-1977, vide Notification No, LH. III- 393/77/949-L. C., by the Land Commission of the Punjab, in c exercise of its power under paragraph 6 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No, 115), for carrying out the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 25 thereof. No doubt, it is laid down in the second proviso to Rule 7 of the said rules that a right of filing a revision petition shall be available to a tenant and not to a landlord. But since these rules aim at furthering the object of the provisions of paragraph 25 of the Regulation of 1972 which merely provides for protection against unlawful eviction of tenants, therefore, it is highly doubtful if such a provision with regard to restriction of right of revision to the tenants alone, through its denial to the landlords, is a lawful contemplation because if such a remedy was to be resorted to by the landlords even then the said protection would still remain enforceable by the revisional authority and will, conceivably, be not defeated.
Hence, this restriction, apart from being uncalled for and irrelevant, is also ultra vires. Moreover, since on the 9th of January, 1972 the field was taken over by the Land Reforms Act, 1977 from the said Regulation of 1972, therefore, on the relevant date (10-6-1977), the power mentioned in the said Rules was not available to be {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1983 CLC 401 {{FOOT NOTE}} invoked for the purpose, Furthermore, the said provision enables plea for eviction of a tenant being maintained in a Revenue Court on the basis of acts of delinquence mentioned therein and for the purpose of proving such an act of default in a Revenue 'Court', as distinguished from an 'Officer', the only mode of redress is a suit which lies under clause (n) of section 77 (3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and the petitioners in this case have already secured a decree for recovery of unpaid rent and have now filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant on the basis thereof under the provisions of clause (e) of the said section, where to section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act clearly gets attracted.
5. For all the foregoing reasons, the said Rule 7 does not stand in the) way of the petitioners invoking the revisional jurisdiction under section 84 ID of the Act and they may avail themselves of the remedy thereunder.
6. This writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.