Malik KHALIL AHMAD Versus PCBL

ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---- Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1-PCBL (hereinafter called "the respondent") filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,69,133/- against the petitioner before the Judicial Officer, PCBL on the ground that land measuring 1564 kanals, details of which is given in para 1 of the suit, was leased out to the petitioner for Rs.66,48,300/- out of which a sum of Rs.56,03,500/- was paid by the petitioner leaving balance of Rs.10,44,800/-; that the competent authority granted rebate of Rs.3,12,292/- on account of loss to the crops of the petitioner as a result of construction of road over a part of the leased out land; that a sum of Rs.7,32,508/- was due against him; that notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.01.2013 but he did not respond to the same.

2. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the suit of the respondent was decreed vide order dated 09.09.2014. The petitioner filed petition before the Cooperative Judge of this Court which was disposed of with consent of both sides and the matter was remanded to learned Judicial Officer for re-decision on merits vide order dated 30.09.2016. In post-remand proceedings, the suit of the respondent was again decreed vide order dated 05.04.2019. Hence this cooperative petition has been filed.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. The emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is on the point that the Judicial Officer, PCBL had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter pertaining to arrears of rent/lease money and if there was any dispute regarding recovery of arrears of lease money, the respondent should have approached the civil court instead of filing suit before the Judicial Officer, PCBL.

5. Admittedly, the land was leased out to the petitioner against lease money of Rs.6648,300/-. This is also not denied from any side that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.56,03,500/- out of the total lease money. Meaning thereby, a sum of Rs.10,44,800/- was due against the petitioner on the said account. The competent authority of the PCBL already granted rebate of Rs.3,12,292/- on account of construction of road over the leased land leaving the balance of Rs.7,32,508/-. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was agreement between the parties that the respondent PCBL would install four tubewells over the suit land which was not done due to which the petitioner had to face loss of less crops. However, the petitioner while appearing before the Judicial Officer has stated as under:

(Emphasis provided)

Perusal of above deposition makes it abundantly clear that there was no written term and condition of installation of four tubewells over the suit land and it is the mere assertion of the petitioner that the PCBL would install four tubewells in the suit land. Mere verbal assertion without any corroborating evidence carries no weight, therefore, it is rejected.

6. So far as jurisdiction of the Judicial Officer who is delegatee and acts as Cooperative Board under Section 7 of the Punjab Undesirable Co-operative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is concerned, the respondent filed suit before the Judicial Officer as back as on 07.03.2013. The petitioner without taking any objection over the jurisdiction of the Judicial Officer contested the suit. He then challenged the decree of the Judicial Officer in favour of the respondent before the Cooperative Judge of this Court under Section 11 of the Act where he consented to remand the matter to the Judicial Officer, raising 'again' no objection upon the jurisdiction of the Judicial Officer to adjudicate upon the matter. The petitioner, if had any objection over the jurisdiction of the Judicial Officer, ought to have raised this objection in the very first instance which was not done for about six years till filing of this petition, therefore, the petitioner, in my view, cannot be allowed to take this objection at this stage when decree has been passed against him not once but twice.

7. Even otherwise, the Judicial Officer had, in view of powers given to him under Section 7 of the Act, jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter of recovery of arrears of lease money for the following reasons:

(i) Under Section 7(ta) of the Act, the Judicial Officer had powers to direct the eviction of tenants from any of the properties in the Board. The suit property is admittedly vests in the Board and it is also not denied that the petitioner was tenant under the Board. When the Judicial Officer has been given powers to evict a tenant, then the powers of recovery of arrears of rent being an ancillary matter will also vest in the Judicial Officer as it does not appeal to a mind of common prudence that one authority will have powers to evict a tenant and some other authority will determine or recover the arrears of the rent which is a matter subservient to that of leased property as well.

(ii) Sections 7(g) and 7(h) of the Act provides that the Judicial Officer may determine, recall and recover loans etc. Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition) defines the word 'loan' as under:

"Loan, n.

1. An act of lending; a grant of something for temporary use <Turner gave the laptop as a loan, not a gift>,

2. A thing lent for the borrower's temporary use; esp. A sum of money lent at interest <Hull applied for a case loan>."

(Emphasis provided)

Perusal of above reveals that if someone gives something to somebody as a loan against some money, this money will be a loan. Since the suit property was given to the petitioner against lease money, therefore, the amount of lease will also be termed as 'loan'. Therefore, the Judicial Officer could validly adjudicate upon the recovery of the lease money, i.e. loan, as provided under Section 7(g) of the Act.

(iii) Section 16 of the Act reads that all the suits or proceedings pending before any court or authority against an Undesirable Cooperative Society in respect of its assets and liabilities shall stand abated on the appointment of the Liquidator and fresh proceedings against such a society may be initiated before the Cooperative Judge. It further provides that there will be no legal effect of any decree or judgment unless it is confirmed by the Cooperative Judge. This reflects that the proceedings regarding cooperative matters can only be agitated under the Act and the jurisdiction of other courts including that of civil court is barred.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of the Judicial Officer to adjudicate upon the matter has no force. Learned Officer has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law. No interference is called for.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition has no merit which is accordingly dismissed.

KMZ/K-5/L Petition dismissed.