GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N. W. F. P.
The petitioners challenged the order of the Peshawar High Court declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities regarding their ejectment and recovery of arrears of lease money. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could be treated as defaulters despite having paid a security deposit of Rs. 3,000 under the lease agreement. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the lease agreement contained no provision for the adjustment of the advance security towards lease arrears, the concurrent factual findings of the revenue authorities and the High Court were unexceptionable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that findings of fact by revenue tribunals undisturbed by the High Court will not be interfered with in the absence of legal error or misreading.
- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities regarding default in lease payments?
- Can an advance security deposit be adjusted towards lease arrears in the absence of an express stipulation in the lease agreement?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI J.-The petitioners held lease of some land from respondents 5 and 6 by an agreement dated 8-10-1970.. The lease was for three years from Kharif 1971 to Rabi 1974. On the expiry of the lease, the said respondents brought a suit for recovery of arrears of lease money and for the ejectment of the petitioners, which was decreed in their favour by the Assistant Collector, Dargai, upon a finding that the petitioners were defaulters. The petitioners challenged the order of their ejectment up to the Board of Revenue but having failed throughout, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court. Their case was that as they had paid Rs. 3,000 to the respondents as security, they could not be held defaulters. The learned Judges, however, declined to interfere with the deci--sion of the Revenue authorities on a question of fact regarding the default in. The payment of lease money.
2. There is nothing in the lease agreement to suggest that the advanced of Rs. 3,000 paid, was adjustable towards arrears of lease money. In the circumstance, the High Court was justified in not interfering with a concurrent finding of fact. We see no good ground to grant leave to appeal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.