' 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.