1980 PLP 138 (SCMR)

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑Zarbaz Khan (hereinafter called the landlord) filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of arrears of rent for the period Kharif 1971 to Rabi 1974 and 'for his eviction from the agricultural land in dispute on account of the default in the payment of , the aforesaid rent.

2. The Assistant Collector decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 46,000 and also ordered eviction of the petitioner on 6th December, 1977.

3. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the Collector on 20th December, 1977.

4. The petitioner filed a Revision which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the Commissioner on 17th May, 1978.

5. A further Revision filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue also failed and was dismissed on 20th July, 1978.

6. The petitioner then filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 587/78 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Peshawar. High Court on 16th 1st January, 1979. The petitioner has come up in a petition for appeal leave against the same to this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit of the respondent land lord. This contention has been met fully in the order of the High Court and it has been held that the petitioner being a tenant/lessee of the respondent, a Revenue Court was quite competent to entertain the suit on the subjects involved therein. The finding of the High Court seems to be quite in' order and the learned counsel could not point out any error in it.

8. Learned counsel then argued that there was no default in the payment of rent, on the part of his client. Here again all the courts below have recorded a verdict against the petitioner and have held him defaulter after attending to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record. In these circumstances the finding of the courts below were rightly maintained by the High Court.

9. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that the landlord had not given full area which was leased out to the petitioner and withheld delivery of possession of a part thereof, and as such, if the rent for the area not delivered is proportionately reduced, then there will be no default on the part of the petitioner. All the courts below have found no merit in this plea. They have held that there was no short delivery and consequently the tenant was not entitled to any proportionate reduction of rent. Learned counsel could find no flaw in this finding and, therefore, the same is not open to exception before us.

10. Last objection by the learned counsel was that Courts below have not allowed compensation to the petitioner for certain super structures made on the land in dispute. It was held that these super structures were made without the consent of the landlord and hence no claim for the same could have been advanced. The view taken seems to be perfectly in accord with the law relevant on the subject.

11. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.