P L D 1966 W (PLP)

(3) Muhammad Hanif v. Inayat (Revision No. 820 of 1964‑65). (4) Muhammad Hanif v. Mahanda (Revision No. 821 of 1964‑65). (5) Muhammad Hanif v. Sardari (Revision No. 822 of 1964‑65). (6) Muhammad Hanif v. Balunda (Revision No. 823 of 1964‑65). (7) Muhammad Hanif v. Sardar (Revision No. 824 of 1964‑65). The respondents are not present, but in the circumstances of the case, 'it is not necessary to insist on their appearance. These seven revisions have been filed against orders dated the 13th of December 1964 passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore, whereby the revision petitions preferred by the respondents were accepted. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a lessor of the land in dispute. He applied to the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade for ejectment of the respondents on the ground of non‑payment of the rent. The application for ejectment was made on the 13th November 1963. Prior to that, on 12‑11‑1963, the respondents had put in an application for the appraisement of the standing crops. The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, ignored their applica tion and passed orders of ejectment. They went in appeal to the Collector, but their appeals were dismissed. They then filed revisions before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue). These were accepted. Hence these second revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The appli cation for ejectment did not mention the harvest for which rents were in arrears. In the absence of any specific mention, the only presumption that could be bad was that the arrears were in respect of the current harvest. If that was so, the application for eject ment was premature, because the crops were standing and the respondents had already moved for appraisement. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the arrears were due about previous crops, but if that was so, the application for eject ment should have specified the harvests for which arrears of rent were due. Before an order for ejectment can be made, it is to be established that the tenants had defaulted in payment of rent. In this case, this was not proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the fact that the application for appraisement of the crop was not pursued by the respondents and was dismissed. The question of arrears of rent is entirely different from that of appraisement. If the respondents have not pursued the application for appraisement and the petitioner has not got any rent for Kharif 1963, they can seek legal remedies for realization of rent. In these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Addi tional Commissioner (Revenue) was perfectly justified. No further interference is justified. All the seven revisions fail and are dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revisions dismissed.