P L D (PLP)

Abdur Rashid for Respondents. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 13th of February 1965, passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who, while exercising the powers of a Commissioner set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, and directed that the proceedings for the ejectment of and recovery of arrears of rent from the respondents be stayed pending the decision of the Civil Court on the question of title. The facts of the case are that the petitioner brought a suit for the ejectment of, and realization of arrears of rent, from the respondents. The respondents denied that there existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and stated that they had already filed a civil suit for the determination of the question of title. It was prayed that the proceedings in the revenue Court might be stayed. This, request was rejected by the Assistant Collector, I Grade.‑ The respondents filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner who passed the order mentioned above. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the direction for instituting, within the prescribed period, a suit in the Civil Court is concerned, the provisions of section 70 of the N.‑W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950 are quite clear. There is no provision, however, which would be directly applicable to cases where a Civil suit in the Civil Court has already been filed. In this particular case, I find that one party had gone to a Revenue Court and the other party has instituted a suit in a Civil Court. Before both the Courts, the matter for determination is the same and it is also between the same parties. Even if the Revenue Court was allowed to proceed with the case and give a decision, this decision would be subject to modification by a decree of a Civil Court if it was in different terms. In these circumstances, it is only appropriate that the parties should be saved from the expenses of fighting their case in the Revenue Court when a Civil Court is dealing with the same matter. It is, therefore, only appropriate that the proceedings in the Revenue Court should be stayed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, raised the question that the petitioner would be adversely affected if the proceedings in the Revenue Court are stayed, in the sense that they will not be able to realize the arrears of rent. This difficulty can be solved by a direction to the effect that the proceedings in the Revenue Court shall be stayed only if the amount claimed by the petitioner as a rent is deposited in the treasury by the respondents. In these circumstances, I partially accept the revision and direct that the orders passed by the learned Additional Commis sioner will be modified to the extent that the proceedings in the Revenue Court shall be stayed only if the respondents deposit in the treasury within two months, the amount claimed by the petitioner. K. M. A. Revision accepted.