1. ' I propose to dispose of this and Civil Revision Petitions Nos, 253 and 254 of 1972 by this judgment, as the same question of law is involved therein.
2. ' Before dilating upon the legal question, the brief facts, so far as relevant for the decision of this case, may be stated as under : ' The disputed property is owned by the Government. The respondents were its occupancy tenants under section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Pursuant to Letters No, 15627-30-D/DK dated 21-9- 1966 and No, 1617-64/975-PV dated 4-5-1964 of the Board of Revenue, their occupancy tenacies were terminated. Upon this, the respondents brought the present suits for declaration that they being the occupancy tenants under section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, have become owners of the disputed property under the provisions of the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950. In the alternative, they prayed for declaration that they are occupancy tenants of the suit land and the above-mentioned letters of the Board of Revenue are inoperative against their rights.
3. ' The petitioner/Government resisted the suits and the plea taken by them was that the occupancy tenancies of the respondents were terminated under section 3 of the N.W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950.
4. ' In view of the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Judge found that in so far as section 3 of the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950, is concerned, it is not applicable in the case. He then adverted to the Exception to section 4 of the said Act which is to the effect that the provisions of that section shall not apply to the land owned or administered by the Government. In view of this, he came to the conclusion that the occupancy tenants under the Government were left untouched and thus their rights were not abolished. Consequently, he passed a decree to the effect that the respondents would be deemed to be still occupancy tenants under the Government. The appeals of the Government/Petitioner in the matter also failed before the learned Additional District Judge and hence those revision petitions.
5. ' I have perused the judgments of the two Courts below. In so far as section 4, or for that matter section 4-A of the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950, is concerned, these sections would appear to have no application in the present case, for, by the Exceptions to either of these sections, it has been made clear that the said sections would not apply to land owned or administered by the Government. In other words, under these sections, the Court will take cognizance of a. Case in which the Government is not landlord of the disputed property There would, therefore, be no question to discuss the case in the light of the provisions of sections 4 and 4-A of the N.-W. F. P.
6. Tenancy Act, 1950.
7. ' The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the Government/petitioner, however, contended that whatever occupancy right was held by the respondents stood terminated in view of section 3 of the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950, and thus the Government, who is landlord in the instant case, has the right to assume possession of the lands in question. I have not been able to appreciate this contention. Before proceeding to consider the effect of section 3 (ibid), the same may better be reproduced:- "Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person whether a tenant or not, shall after the commencement of this Act, acquire, have or continue to have a right of occupancy in any land under any enactment, contract, decree or order of any Court or ."
8. ' A look at this section will show that it is not unqualified. The phrase "Subject to the provisions of this Act" with which the section has started is significant. In other words, this section has visualized conditions on the basis of which occupancy tenancies will be terminated. When asked to show those provisions in the Act in which conditions for the termination of the occupancy tenancies have been laid down the learned Additional Advocate-General was unable to point out any such provision in the Act. He, however, contended that in any case the intention of the Legislature behind section 3 of the Act would be to abolish occupancy tenancies of the land owned or administered by the Government, and thus the Court would be justified to hold as such. This contention would appear to be based on no conceivable hypothesis. It is clear that under section 3 of the N.-W. F. P.
9. Tenancy Act, 1950, the Legislature has left it to itself to make provisions in view of which occupancy tenancies will be terminated. The Legislature has, however, omitted to do any such thing. It is well- settled that it is only for the Legislature to resolve cams omissus in a statute by suitable amendment or addition, and it is not the duty of the Court to arrogate to itself the power of making laws. In this respect, reference may be made to AIR 1928 Lab. 337 in which the dictum of law laid down is as under:- "Court cannot aid the Legislature's defective phrasing of the Act they cannot add and amend, any by construction make up the deficiencies which are left there. Whether an omission in Act followed from forgetfulness of the draftsman or was intentional is no concern of the Courts and it is well- settled that cases omissus cannot be supplied by a Court, for that would be to make Laws."
10. ' The upshot of this discussion is that since no guidelines have been enunciated or for that matter the anticipated provisions have been enacted in the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy, Act, 1950, in regard to the termination of the occupancy tenancies, the efficacy of section 3 of the said Act would remain standstill. Notice may also be taken of the fact that there is no indication in section 3 (ibid) that it concerns those lands owned or administered by the Government. As a matter of fact, section 3 of the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950, for the present would appear to be obscure, or so to speak, redundant. In this view of the matter, I hold that until such time as the Legislature may introduce provisions in the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950, the status of respondents as occupancy tenants of the disputed property would remain intact.
11. ' These revision petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed. Under the circumstances, however, there would be no order as to costs.