IMTIAZ MASRUR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II).- 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. Rasia 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, Khatauni 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 Rasia Begum and himself. The Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Grade-I, Pakpattan Sharif, after hearing the case passed an ex-parte 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. Rasia 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-I had no jurisdiction to pass ex-parte decree because 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 Addl.
Commissioner(Rev.), Multan Division, Multan. Reliance has also been made on a case PLJ 1987 S.C.
(AJK) 87 titled "Mst. Resham Jan and 3 others versus 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 the of agreement. He disappeared so ex-parte decree was passed by the Tehsildar/A.C.I on 3.12.1989. The petitioners 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 (MLR 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 Rasia 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 sub-section (1) of section 115 CPC 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 Rasia 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 or Khangi partition is not a prerequisite for ejectment of the lessee.
6. In his right of reply the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Rasia 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, Pakpattan Sharif was based on the consent of the parties and appeal is incompetent incase of compromise/consent judgment/decree.
According to 1984 M.L.D.249 titled " Fateh Muhammad and another Versus 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 Versus Malik Abdul Hamid and others" one of co-owners can take out ejectment proceedings. According to 1980 CLC 316 titled "Mrs. Suleman versus 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 versus Ghulam 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 Versus Member(Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 18 others" Lesse not included in definition of a "tenant" for purposes of Para 25 and 2(13) as amended by Punjab Ordinance (V of 1982).
9. It is obvious that Khangi partition was not essential for Rasia 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 PLJ 1987 SC(AJK)87 that co- sharers not entitled to get possession of specific number without partition, is not on all fours in this case specific number without partition, is not op 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/AC. L 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.