M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The respondent who owned 84 kanals of land in Mauza Sikandarabad, Tehsil Shujabad District Multan, contract of adalapi with the petitioner by a registered agreement 11-11- 1963 for planting a mango orchard. The conditions were in the following words: The parties also entered into a Mustajri agreement. The respondent brought a suit for possession on 6-1-1971 on the ground that the peti--tioner had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. The suit was decreed by the trial Court against which the petitioner's first appeal failed where after he preferred a second appeal before the Lahore High Court, which, too, was dismissed by the impugned order dated 10-12-1980.
2. Two points had been raised before the High Court: Firstly, that time for growing the orchard was not the essence of the contract slid as such the possession of the land could not be delivered even after the expiry of the period of seven years stipulated therein and, secondly, that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the improvements made in the land. The contentions were repelled as the High Court came to the view that "the appellant was bound to develop the land and convert the same into a full-fledged garden within seven years by the end of 1971 and on his failure to do so the respondent had a right to rescind the contract" and that according to the findings of the two Courts below the petitioner "had failed to prove the cost of any improvement made on the land".
3. The smtye contentions, as had been raised in the High Court, are urged Wore us and it has been added that the decree of dispossession could not have been passed as the petitioner was also a lessee in respect of the land under Mustajri agreement and that there being evidence of some 176 plants existing on the land, he should have been compensated. For the same:- The points raised are basically of fact. The Courts below have concurrently found that the petitioner had failed to comply with the terms of the agreement and that he had also not produced evidence to ,justify award of compensation. In the circumstances, we do not find it a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed.
S. Q.