1992 PLP 1849 (SCMR)

WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J: ‑‑Hakim Khan and others, petitioners herein, seek leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 28‑4‑1991 passed by the Peshawar High Court, whereby their writ petition challenging the orders of the hierarchy of special, forums constituted under the Tenancy Act, was dismissed. The facts of the case are that Inamullah and others, respondents 4 to 9 herein, filed a suit against Hakim Khan and others, petitioners herein, for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenants/petitioners. The learned trial Court, respondent No.3 herein, passed decree for arrears of rent amounting to Rs.10,740 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents against the defendants/petitioners but refused their ejectment from the suit property. The landlords/respondents filed appeal before the Collector which too, was dismissed vide order, dated 25‑7‑1990. However, their revision petition succeeded vide order, dated 26‑9‑1990 and a decree for ejectment of defendants/petitioners was also passed on payment of half of the compensation for improvement determined by the Local Commissioner. The petitioners, therefore, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court which was dismissed through the impugned order. We have heard Mr. Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record, for the petitioners; Mr. Z. Mahfuz Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record, for respondents 4 to 9; and have perused the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners admits relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but asserts that the petitioners were not proved to be defaulters and therefore, they could not be legally ejected from the suit property. This contention of the learned counsel has no force because the decree for arrears of rent was passed by the trial Court which was not challenged before the higher forums and the conclusion of the trial Court that the petitioners were proved to be defaulters attained finality. He next submitted that the petitioners were entitled to the cost of improvement as assessed by the Local Commissioner and that finding of the Additional Commissioner entitling them to half of it was not based on any law or custom. The learned Additional Commissioner has dealt with this aspect of the case and we have no reason to differ with him. The improvements are in the form of trees etc. and just like the crops the owners/landlords on whose land they were growing had equal right to it. The decision of the learned Additional Commissioner that both, the landlords and the tenants, are equally entitled to the trees is based on equity and no exception can be taken to it at this stage. We do not find any legal flaw in the impugned judgment of the High court and decline leave to appeal. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. M.B.A./H‑150/S Petition dismissed.