' Zewer Gul, Attorney, for the petitioner and Sultan petitioner in person, and Mr. Abdur Rehman, Advocate, Peshawar, for respondents are present and have been heard in these two revision petitions filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar, dated 29-1-1978, by which he upheld the order and decree of the lower Courts. The counsel for the petitioner submitted an application for adjournment on the ground that he was to attend the Court of the Sessions Judge, at Charsadda. The request of the learned counsel does not appear worth-consideration for the reason that he was informed much before the date of this hearing and he should have made necessary adjustment to meet the situation. At this stage, when the case is complete and is fixed for final hearing, it will not be in the interest of both the parties to adjourn it.
' In this case, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade had passed only the decree of produce of Rs, 3,382.25 for the suit land measuring 44 kanals 10 marlas in one case and Rs, 3,646.89 for the land measuring 106 kanals 12 marlas in the other case, situated in the area of 'village Hisara Birani Bala, Tehsil Charsadda, in favour of respondents and against the petitioner but the suit for ejectment was kept in observance vide his order dated 25-4-1974. This order on Appeal and Revision of the petitioner was confirmed by the Collector and Additional Commissioner, Peshawar. There is nothing on record to prove that the Courts below have acted wrongly or with any material irregularity or exercised jurisdiction not vested in\ them The petitioner's main objection is that the he had already cleared the dues and nothing was outstanding against him and that the respondent had not discharged their obligation and the Courts below failed to deduct the amount admissible under M. L. R.
115. These points have not been proved by the petitioner in the lower Courts. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to prove that the relationship of the landlord and the tenant did exist and that the petitioner failed to pay the rent in respect of the suit land under his tenancy so the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was perfectly justified to pass the decree for produce. There is no reason for, interference with the concurrent findings of these Courts below.
' As regards the question of payment of compensation for Improvement of land in dispute, in this respect the law on the point is quite clear. It is obligatory on the part of a Court, in case of ejectment, to ask the tenant to file a statement of his claim,, if any, about compensation for improvement or for disturbance and ground thereof and the Court shall determine the amount due to tenant. But in this case the question of ejectment has been kept in abeyance and there was no decree for ejectment. Therefore, the need for determining and is hereby any compensation does not arise. In view of these findings, there is no reason for interference with the concurrent findings of the three Court below. The Revision Petition is without any substance rejected.