In case 1995 C L C 1823 the property in question was not treated as evacuee property under the West Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957. The plaintiffs were in possession based on possessory title, with entries in Lamabandi from 1930-31 recorded as tenants. The trial court incorrectly treated the land as evacuee property, despite it not being designated as such by the Rehabilitation and Settlement Department. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ suit for establishing occupancy rights was pending. The dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit on the grounds of it being evacuee property was unwarranted in the given circumstances.
The case P.L.J. 2001 SC 49 concerns the mutation of ownership rights in occupancy tenants. The trial court decreed the appellant’s suit claiming ownership, but the appellate court and high court dismissed it, citing the civil court’s lack of jurisdiction and the matter falling under the purview of Revenue Authorities. However, it was overlooked that, according to S. 114 (3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, the relationship between parties as landlord and tenant existed only until the government framed rules in 1953. By the time the mutation was sanctioned in 1960 and the suit was filed, the landlord-tenant relationship no longer existed, allowing the civil court to entertain the suit. The judgments of the appellate court and high court were set aside, and the case was remanded for reconsideration.
The case PLD 2003 Lah. 180 involves a gift of property by an occupancy tenant’s sister. The occupancy rights were sanctioned in favor of the sister after the tenant’s death. The plaintiffs challenged the transaction, alleging collusion and fraud, while the defendants argued that the gift was legal because the sister had deposited compensation under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, but the first appellate court reversed the decision. The plaintiffs contended that Ss. 8 & 114 of Punjab Tenancy Act were misinterpreted. The court found that none of the legal heirs challenged the gift, and the proprietary rights devolved upon the occupancy tenant’s sister, who had deposited the price. The first appellate court correctly determined that the sister became the absolute owner after the rights of proprietors had become extinct. The high court declined to interfere with this decision.
In the case provided, the deceased was an occupancy tenant of the suit land, passing away without any heirs. Following the tenant’s demise, the occupancy rights were granted to his sister by Revenue Authorities. Subsequently, the sister, during her possession, gifted the property. The proprietors or plaintiffs contested the transaction, alleging collusion and fraud. The defendants argued that the sister, as the occupant, had fulfilled her obligations under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, by depositing compensation, making the gift legally valid. The trial court determined the sister to be a limited owner and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, setting aside the trial court’s judgment and decree. The proprietors raised a plea that Sections 8 and 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act were misconstrued by the First Appellate Court. None of the legal heirs challenged the gift, leaving the proprietors’ claims unopposed. The rights of the proprietors were deemed extinct upon the mutation of the last occupancy tenant in favor of the deceased tenant’s sister. According to Section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, proprietary rights devolved onto the occupancy tenants, and the sister had deposited the full price. The owners of the disputed property contested the mutation of occupancy tenancy through a civil suit but later consented in appeal regarding her status as a ‘limited owner’ during her lifetime. They did not challenge the conferment of proprietary rights under Section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The First Appellate Court correctly concluded that the sister became the absolute owner after the extinction of the proprietors’ rights and could alienate the entire holding in the absence of any legal heir contesting the matter. The High Court declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. (PLD 2003 Lah. 180)
In the case involving Section 15A(2) of the Tenancy Act, it was established that it does not encompass charges and levies falling outside the scope of “Government dues.” Hence, it does not apply to special charges imposed under Sections 33 to 35 of Act VIII of 1873. (P L D 1971 Lah. 979)
Regarding the ejectment of a tenant, it was determined that the right of a person holding a decree for ejectment is distinct from other rights under a decree for rent arrears. A person cannot be ejected solely based on a decree for rent arrears if they have neither a right of occupancy nor a fixed term. (P L J 1980 Lahore 591)
In a situation where a petitioner was dispossessed through the intervention of the police, at the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, resorting to a civil suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act or under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act was not appropriate. The petitioner’s personal and individual rights had been infringed, justifying the filing of a Constitutional petition. Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973 grants extensive powers to the High Court for the enforcement of fundamental and legal rights. (P.L.J.1999 Lah. 140, 1998 MLD 1977, NLR 1998 Civil 714)
In a case where an occupancy tenant passed away before the amendment of Section 59, questions arose about who was to succeed the widow of the tenant. The parties relied on Section 59, and it was established that collaterals needed to prove both a common ancestor and common possession. The burden of proof for both elements rested on the plaintiffs. The pedigree table established a common ancestor for the plaintiffs, but this alone was insufficient. They also needed to prove that the land was occupied by the ancestor. (P.L.J.1998 Lah. 1620 ,NLR 1998 Rev. 37)
Lastly, under the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act (VII of 1952) in conjunction with Muslim Personal (Shariat) Law, occupancy tenancy was converted into proprietorship, with limitations on alienation. This status would change upon succession under Muslim Personal (Shariat) Law. Mere conversion of occupancy tenancy into proprietorship did not remove existing restrictions. Reversionaries had the right to challenge invalid gifts and seek possession of their share after the limited owner’s demise. (P L J 1981 Supreme Court 888)
Occupancy rights in evacuee land: This case involved the interpretation of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Rules (1959), specifically Rule 7 (c), and the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme (1956), particularly paragraph 4-A. It also considered Compensation pools created under Section 5 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958). The issue revolved around the allocation of occupancy rights in land previously owned by non-Muslim evacuees but left as a legacy by a Muslim to be inherited by his heirs listed in Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (1887). The case clarified that the allotment of such rights to refugee claimants, in place of their verified claims, was prohibited by paragraph 4-A of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme (1956). Disputed rights, owned and possessed by a Muslim occupancy tenant, fell under the jurisdiction of civil courts, regulated by Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (1908). (P L J 1980 Lahore 532)
Inheritance of tenancy rights: In this case, the question centered around whether a daughter could inherit her father’s estate when the father held tenancy rights over land. The case clarified that the succession to occupancy tenancy was not governed by custom applicable to parties or their personal law, except as provided in Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The right of succession was determined by general inheritance laws. Therefore, the plaintiff, despite being the real sister of the defendant-appellant, was not entitled to inherit her father’s estate, which included occupancy rights in the land. (PLJ 1996 AJ&K 58)
Ownership and tenancy dispute: This case necessitated a factual inquiry due to conflicting entries regarding the nature of ownership and tenancy recorded in Jamabandis for different years. The matter was addressed under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, which required a factual resolution of the ownership and tenancy dispute. The court observed that the controversy had not been appropriately settled by Revenue Officers, leading to the acceptance of the writ petition. The court set aside various orders issued by Revenue Officers and stated that anyone claiming ownership or tenancy rights in the land in question could file a suit under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (1887) to resolve the dispute. (P.L.J.1999 Lah. 673 also cited as 1999 MLD 2727)
Locus standi in legal proceedings: This case clarified the principle that a person who seeks a declaration through the court, likely to gain an advantage concerning their rights, cannot be denied standing on the ground of lacking locus standi. The court held that the inclusion of a party as a necessary and proper party would not cause prejudice to the petitioner. The lower courts had exercised their discretion properly without illegality. (P.L.J.1998 Lah. 314)
Suits involving tenants: This case emphasized that tenants cannot be evicted, and suits involving them are maintainable in the Revenue Court with territorial jurisdiction. The High Court correctly determined that suits filed in civil courts were not appropriate and fell under the purview of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. (P L J 1981 Supreme Court 225)
Accounts and co-ownership: This case dealt with the obligation to render accounts. Petitioners, who were in possession of the disputed land as co-sharers and co-owners in excess of their entitlement, were held unjustified in denying their liability for rendering accounts or refusing to pay the due amount. The case from another village, where plaintiffs were similarly in joint possession and liable for accounts to defendants, was deemed irrelevant to the impugned orders. (P L J 1980 Supreme Court 58)
Acquisition of ownership rights under tenancy: This case involved the acquisition of ownership rights in land under tenancy. Revenue authorities sanctioned a mutation that converted occupancy tenants’ ownership rights, assuming rent was payable in kind only. The appellant’s suit claiming ownership was decreed by the Trial Court. However, the Appellate Court and High Court dismissed the suit, asserting that the civil court lacked jurisdiction, and the matter was exclusively within the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities. The case clarified that, under Section 114 (3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act (1887) as amended by the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act (1952), the relationship between parties as landlord and tenant existed until government rules were framed. These rules were framed by the government in 1953. Therefore, by the time the mutation was sanctioned in 1960, and the suit was filed, the landlord-tenant relationship had ceased to exist, allowing the civil court to entertain the suit. The judgments of the High Court in revision and the Appellate Court were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits. (P.L.J. 2001SC49)
Inheritance from original tenant: This case addressed the issue of inheritance from an original tenant and whether tenancy should be treated as agricultural land, along with the applicable law governing the right of succession to tenancy. It highlighted that succession to tenancy would be governed by the general law of inheritance after the land had been acquired by a tenant, with specific provisions from earlier acts determining succession in certain situations. (PLJ 1996 SC 503)
Conditions of Sale Deed – Validity of Residential Use Condition: The case in question examined the validity of a condition within a sale deed stipulating that the plaintiffs could only use their plots for residential purposes. The court considered the purpose of the relevant Act and its sections (Sections 2 and 3), which empowered the government to make land grants or transfers subject to various restrictions, conditions, and limitations. It was established that the objective of these sections was to authorize such restrictions, conditions, or limitations to be valid and enforceable, regardless of any contrary rule of law, statute, or enactment. Consequently, the condition in the sale deeds, which restricted the use of the property to residential purposes only, was deemed valid. (PLJ 1991 Lahore 168)
Tenant and Tenancy – Statutory Notice: This case delved into the scope of statutory notice in the context of tenant protection. The court noted that the intention behind such provisions was to extend protection to tenants, allowing them to remain in the occupation of premises for a specified period. Tenants eligible for a statutory notice should not face eviction before the period stipulated in the relevant laws. (PLJ 1999 Karachi 817)
Ejectment of Tenant – Extension of Time for Deposit of Arrears: The case centered on whether a Rent Controller had the authority to extend the time for depositing rent arrears. It clarified that default under Section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was of a unique nature and could not be equated with ordinary default under Section 15 of the same Ordinance. Default under Section 16(2) involved a violation of the Controller’s directions, and the Controller did not possess the discretion to condone the delay or extend the time once it was fixed. Therefore, the filing of an application for an extension of time by the appellant was deemed futile, and the appeal was dismissed. (PLJ 1991 Karachi 501)
