GUL HASHIM vs NOOR QADIR and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Revenue authorities and the High Court regarding a suit for the recovery of batai (share of produce) and ejectment filed by a landlord against a tenant. The petitioner contended that the lower authorities erred in calculating the batai at 50% of the produce, asserting that the legal limit was 40%, and further argued that he was entitled to deduct the costs of improvements made to the land from the payable amount. The Supreme Court examined the merits of these contentions and determined that, even when applying the 40% rate and accounting for the costs of improvements, the petitioner remained a defaulter in his obligations. Consequently, the Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower authorities did not warrant interference under its appellate jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that where a tenant remains in default of payment obligations despite adjustments for legal rates and improvements, the findings of lower revenue courts regarding ejectment and recovery will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding ejectment when the tenant remains a defaulter?
- Is a tenant entitled to deduct the costs of improvements from the batai payable to the landlord?
- Can a tenant avoid ejectment if they remain a defaulter even after calculating batai at the maximum legal rate?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was cultivating land under respondent No,1 in village Sher Garh of Tehsil Mardan. Respondent No,1 filed a suit against the petitioner in the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade at Mardan for recovery of batai and ejectment. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector and his judgment was upheld in appeal by the Collector. The petitioner's revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division. He then filed writ petition in the High Court but that too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the suit of respondent No,1 has been decreed by the Revenue authorities on the assumption that the batai was to be paid at the rate of 50% of the produce whereas under the law the landlord could not claim batai at a rate higher than 40% of the produce. It is also stated that the petitioner had made imprc vements in the land and that he was entitled to deduct the costs of improvements from the amount of batai payable to the landlord.
3. We find that even after calculating the amount of batai at the rate of 40% of the produce and giving the petitioner credit for the costs of improvements, he is still a defaulter. That being so, this is not a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is 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.