SHAMROZ AND Another vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the ejectment of tenants. The petitioners, who were tenants, were ejected by the Assistant Collector for non-payment of lease money regarding Rabi and Kharif crops for the year 1979. After exhausting their remedies through appeals to the Collector, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), and the Member, Board of Revenue, the petitioners sought relief in the High Court, which was denied. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that they had attempted to pay the lease money to the respondent prior to the ejectment proceedings and had subsequently deposited the amount with the trial court. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower courts, which consistently held that the petitioners had defaulted on their payment obligations. The Court affirmed that a subsequent deposit of the lease money does not condone the initial default. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as being without merit.
- Does the subsequent deposit of lease money with a trial court condone a prior default in payment by a tenant?
- Can a tenant avoid ejectment proceedings by depositing arrears after the default has already occurred?
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 19-10-1982 in Writ Petition No. 249 of 1982.
2. Petitioners as tenants were ejected by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Dargai on the ground of non-payment of arrears of lease money to respondent Dawa Khan in respect of crops of Rabi and Kharif, 1979, vide his order dated 15-4-1981. Petitioners filed appeal before the Collector, Malakand Agency which failed. A revision petition was then filed before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Malakand Division, Swat, who vide his judgment dated 28-10-1981 rejected the same. Petitioners then filed second revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, N: W. F. P. Which also met the same fate. Finally, writ petition was filed in the Peshawar High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that earlier to the filing of ejectment proceedings they had offered to Dawa Khan respondent the lease money due but he refused to accept the same. Petitioners, therefore, applied on 19-3-1980 to the trial Court for permission to deposit the lease money which was allowed and they deposited the amount of Rs. 2,880 on 30-4-1980.
4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that all the courts below held that the petitioners had, in fact, made default in the payment of lease money for the relevant period and the deposit of the amount subsequent thereto cannot condone the default.
Thus the petition is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.