' This is a revision petition against the orders dated 13-6-1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, Multan, whereby he dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mst. Raisa Begum filed an ejectment suit in the Court of Tehsildar against the respondent No,3, Qasim Ali stating that 'Qasim Ali_ was her lessee of agricultural land comprising Khewat No,22, Khatuni Nos.76 to 80, according to the Jamabandi for the year 1985-86 of Mauza 17/S.P., and he had not paid lease money to her for the last three years.
She prayed that Qasim Ali may be ejected from her land. Qasim Ali respondent in that case, denied the relationship of owner and lessee between Raisa Begum. And himself. The Tehsilar/Assistant Collector Grade-I, Pakpattan Sharif, after hearing the case passed an ex pane decree against Qasim Ali. This order was challenged in the Court of A.C./Collector, Pakpattan Sharif. Both parties made a compromise in the Court of A.C./Collector, Pakpattan Sharif according to which Qasim Ali was to give possession of land to Mst. Raisa Begum after cutting wheat crop, of Rabi 1990. The A.C./Collector decided the case on the basis of the compromise. This decision was challenged in the Court of Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Multan Division, Multan, who vide his order dated 13- 6-1990 dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners. Hence the present revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for both, sides at length and perused the record of the case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners claims that the petitioners and the respondent are co- sharers. The land measuring .376 Kanals is cultivated by the respondent No,3. The respondent No,1 is not occupant of any specific number as this is a joint "Khata and there is no Khangi partition.
Each co-sharer has equal share in whole Khata. He has further stated that the Tehsildar/A.C.
Grade-1 had no jurisdiction to pass ex pane decree after sixty days he had no right to pass the said orders. The compromise on which the decision of the Tehsildar/A.C. Grade-I was based, was made in connivance with respondent No,3 and, therefore, the only remedy available with the petitioners was to file a revision under the Punjab Tenancy Act, which was refused by the Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Multan Division, Multan. Reliance has also been made on a case PLD 1987 SC (AJ&K). 93 titled "Mst. Resham Jan and 3 others v. Muhammad. Latif and another", according to which co-sharers are not entitled to get possession of specific numbers without partition.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No,1 has stated that in fact there are two suits, (i) (URDU)' and (ii) "(URDU). These suits are against Qasim Ali. Qasim Ali denies that he was a lessee at the time of agreement. He disappeared so ex parte decree was passed by the Tehsildar/A.C.I on 3-12- 1989. The petitioner moved an appeal before the A.C./Collector, Pakpattan where a compromise was effected. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that it is an acknowledged principle of law that no appeal lies against a consent decree. The plea of the petitioners that the compromise had been effected by fraud and in collusion against the present petitioners, is not tenable. The learned counsel for the respondent further stated that the petitioners are 3rd party and they are not tenants under para.25 of the Land. Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115).. The definition of the tenant is the same as is in the Punjab Tenancy Act. But does not include a lessor. The limitation of sixty days, therefore, does not apply in this case that is why Raisa Begum filed an ejectment suit in the Court of Tehsildar. The learned counsel for the respondents raised an objection about the maintainability of the revision petition as under subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C., the revision petition can be entertained only on the basis of, a jurisdictional error and only when no appeal is competent. If appeal was competent before the Assistant Commissioner against the orders of the Tehsildar the petitioners should have gone in appeal but Hashim Ali never appealed. Hence the revision petition does not lie. There is no error of jurisdiction either. The learned counsel for the respondents further stated that Raisa Begum had been getting nothing since.1988.
Ever if the said Qasim Ali is a lessee of all co-sharers. The possession of one of the co-sharers on any specific Khasra number of Khangi partition is not a pre-requisite for ejectment of the lessee.
6. In his light of reply the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Raisa Begum should, have filed a suit for rendition of accounts. The suit of ejectment is not competent as no specific Khasra' numbers are under her possession.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced by both sides and perused the record.
8. The factual position is that there is weight in the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the respondents. The judgment of the A.C./Collector, A Pakpattan Sharif was based on the consent of the parties and appeal is incompetent in case of compromise/consent judgment/decree.
According to 1984 M LD 249 titled "Fateh Muhammad and another v. Ali Muhammad Kassam", one of the several owners could file ejectment case and any order passed would be for benefit of all co-owners and not for benefit of person filing ejectment case. Further, according to 1983 CLC 2156 titled ''Bashir Ahmad v. Malik Abdul Hamid and others" one of co-owners can take out ejectment proceedings. According to 1980 CLC 316 titled "Mrs. Suleman v. Abdul Ghafoor" application for ejectment can be initiated by one landlord without impleading co-landlords as party. According to 1979 CLC 229 titled "Hajan Bakhtawar and another v. Ghulatti Rasool and 3 others". Even one-owner can eject tenant on ground of default without impleading other co-owners. According to 1984 CLC 2950 titled "Muhammad Ashraf v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 18 others". Lessee not included, in definition of a "tenant" for purposes of paras.25 and 2(13) as amended by Punjab Ordinance (V of 1982).
9. It is obvious that Khangi partition was not essential for Raisa Begum to file a suit for ejectment.
Even if there is no specific Khasra numbers in the possession of the respondent, she was competent to file ejectment suit. The case referred to by the petitioners PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 93 that co-sharers not entitled to get possession of specific number without partition, is not on all fours in this case because there is a distinction between a suit for possession and ejectment suit.
10. In view of the above discussion, I find that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders dated 30-12-1989 passed by the Tehsildar/A.C.I, Pakpattan Sharif, orders dated 3-4-1990 passed by the A.C./Collector, Pakpattan Sharif, and orders dated 3-4-1990 passed by the A.C./Collector, Pakpattan Sharif, and orders dated 13-6-1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). The revision petition being devoid of legal force is hereby dismissed, the impugned orders are upheld.