1995 PLP 1338 (MLD)

2. The petitioners (defendants) contested the suit and filed their written statement wherein lot of legal as well as factual objections were raised. The pleadings of the parties were reduced to as many as 10 issues. After recording the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective cases, the learned trial Court granted a decree, as prayed for; to the respondent- plaintiff.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners‑defendants filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree before the learned lower appellate Court. The appeal was, however, dismissed on 15‑11‑1994.

4. The concurrent findings of the Courts below have now been challenged by the petitioners (defendants) through this revision petition for the redress of their grievance.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah, Advocate present and heard at length.

6. It may be stated at the outset that the suit plot, in the first instance, was leased out to the respondent, in the year, 1968. The lease, thereafter, was renewed, from time to time, with the consent of the parties. It was in 1975 that respondent (plaintiff) constructed a commercial building on the suit plot after obtaining the requisite sanction from the petitioners (defendants). In this respect, photostat copy (Exh. P.W.l/1) of the original plaint and the photo copy (Exh. P.W.1/2) of the approval letter issued by the petitioners (defendants) are available on the file. This clearly indicates that the building, commercial in nature, was constructed by the respondent‑plaintiff with the prior approval and sanction of the petitioners (defendants). It may be pointed out that initially the suit plot was leased out to the respondent (plaintiff) vide Exh. P.W.3/1 at the rate of Rs. 2,400 per annum. The period of that lease was to expire on 31‑12‑1987. The respondent (plaintiff) then submitted an application for the extension of, lease for a period of 99 years. His application was processed by the petitioners' department and the Chief Minister, Government of N. W. F. P., vide Exh. P.W.3/1, extended that lease only for a period of 30 years. The approval of the Provincial Government was accordingly conveyed to the respondent vide Exh. P.W.2/4. The extended lease of 30 years was to commence w.e.f., 1‑1‑1988, on enhanced rent of Rs. 6,000 per annum. A proper lease deed (Exh. P.W.2/1) was therefore executed in favour of the respondent (plaintiff) which was duly registered by the sub‑Registrar, Exh. P.W.2/5 (receipt of rent) and Exh. P.W.2/6 (receipt for water tax) would also show that lease deed Exh. P.W.2/1) has also been acted upon by the parties.

7. It may be mentioned here that the respondent (plaintiff) is in possession of the property in question since, 1968 as a lessee and has, during this period, spent huge amount to the extent of lacs of rupees by constructing a commercial building on it and that too with the prior approval and sanction of the petitioners (defendants).

8. On the other hand, the petitioners (defendants) have produced no evidence, whatsoever, to rebut the case of the respondent (plaintiff). The petitioners, in the circumstances, were thus not entitled to reduce the lease period from 30 years to 3 years unilaterally especially without affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent (plaintiff) in the first instance. Their action is, therefore, illegal and void being against natural justice.

9. In the circumstances mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the learned lower Courts have neither misread the evidence produced by the parties nor have they exercised a jurisdiction which was not vested in them or have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in them. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, has committed no illegality in dismissing the appeal. The order of the learned appellate Court is well‑founded and needs no interference in revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. AA./1754/P Revision dismissed.