ISLAMUDDIN and 3 others vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONERII, MALAKAND AT
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an ejectment suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners regarding land held under a lease agreement. The petitioners contested the eviction, claiming the lease had been extended for a five-year period, of which three years remained. The Assistant Collector, Grade-I, ordered the petitioners' ejectment while granting compensation for improvements, a decision upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities. The Peshawar High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' writ petition in limine. Before the Supreme Court, it was undisputed that the extended lease period claimed by the petitioners had expired by the time of the hearing. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that since the underlying basis for the petitioners' continued possession—the alleged lease extension—had lapsed, there was no remaining legal ground to challenge the eviction order. The Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal on the basis that the matter had become infructuous due to the efflux of time.
- Does the expiration of a disputed lease period render a petition for leave to appeal against an ejectment order infructuous?
- Can a tenant resist eviction based on a lease extension that has subsequently expired during the pendency of litigation?
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---The facts are that Gul Nawaz Khan, respondent No, 4, filed a suit against the petitioners for their eviction from the land in dispute primarily on the ground that period of lease expired by efflux of time. The petitioners resisted the suit and raised the plea that after expiry of the lease in question, it was extended by 5 years, against which 3 years' period was still to be availed of by them. The Assistant Collector, Grade-I, passed an ejectment order against the petitioners but allowed them some compensation for improvement. This order was maintained by die Appellate and the Revisional forums. The petitioners then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court, but their writ petition was dismissed in limine vide order dated 14-7-1992, from which leave to appeal is sought now.
2. We have heard the learned counsel. It is not disputed that by now the extended period of the lease claimed by the petitioners has also expired. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel could not advance any plausible argument to canvass grant of leave.
' There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused.