Vague tenancy plea cannot justify reference in execution; factual particulars are required before tenancy rights are examined.

A tenancy question cannot be framed or referred in execution proceedings on the basis of a bare plea unsupported by material facts. A party asserting tenancy must plead concise facts showing the origin, time, creator and terms of the alleged tenancy; a vague assertion is insufficient to invoke tenancy adjudication. Earlier proceedings that did not determine tenancy over the disputed land do not cure that defect or provide the missing factual basis. On that reasoning, the executing court was justified in rejecting the objection and proceeding with execution of the scheme decree, and a direction to hand over possession to the alleged tenant was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a tenancy issue could be framed and referred to the tenancy authority in execution proceedings on the basis of a bare and unsupported plea of tenancy, and whether possession of the trust land could be directed to be handed over to the alleged tenant.

Analysis: A plea seeking reference of a tenancy question must be supported by concise material facts showing the origin, time, creator, and terms of the alleged tenancy. A mere assertion of tenancy, without particulars or factual foundation, is too vague to justify framing of an issue or making a reference under the tenancy law. The earlier proceedings relied upon by the alleged tenant did not determine the existence of tenancy in relation to the disputed land, and therefore did not supply the missing factual basis. In these circumstances, the executing court was justified in rejecting the objection and executing the scheme decree.

Conclusion: The tenancy issue could not be framed or referred on such a vague plea, and the direction to hand over possession to the alleged tenant was unsustainable.

---