' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.--This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a suit filed by Amir Ghawas, respondent No,5 herein, against the petitioners for their eviction from the land in dispute and recovery of Rs,6,300 as rent in respect of Rabi-Kharif 1980 and Rabi-Kharif 1981 crops, on the grounds that they sublet the tenancy and failed to pay the rent. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit on 29-6-1986, as according to him both the contentions remained unproved. The Collector, however, accepted the landlord's appeal and held that the tenancy which was for two years expired on 30-3-1982, but even thereafter the petitioners without the landlord's consent continued to remain in possession of the land. Keeping in view the rise in the price level, meaning thereby the corresponding fall in the money value, he enhanced the rate of rent from Rs,300 to Rs, 800 per Jarib per annum for the suit crops and onward. He further maintained that in case, the petitioners were not willing to pay the enhanced rate of `Ijara,' they would be liable to be evicted. With this order the Additional Commissioner, Malakand, did not interfere and dismissed the petitioners' second appeal by his order dated 23-6-1988.
2. Aggrieved by the orders aforesaid the petitioners filed a revision. The Home Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., acting as revisional authority, under his order dated 26-9-1989, intervened only to the extent that he reduced the annual rent from Rs,800 to Rs,600 per Jarib payable for 21 Jaribs as against area of 25 Jaribs sued for by the respondent. The petitioners then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Their writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 27-5-1990, rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, under challenge before us.
3. The only argument advanced by Mr. Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record, in support of this petition is that in his suit the respondent never claimed any relief as to the enhancement of the rent; it was therefore, not within the competence of the Tribunals below to enhance the "Ijara", and the High Court was wrong in refusing to interfere with such illegal orders.
4. We are not persuaded by these arguments. The petitioners have been adjudged as defaulters in paying "Ijara" due from them in 1980-1981. In the meanwhile, there was substantial fall in the money value. While granting relief to a successful plaintiff, it is always open to the Court to grant him such general relief, as in the interest of justice the nature of the case may demand. The enhancement of rent is seemingly in conformity with changed circumstances. Moreover, the term of the petitioners' lease expired by efflux of time on 30-3-1982. After that they were not under any compulsion to continue to hold the land. If the enhanced rate was not acceptable to them, they could quit the land. Grant of leave under writ jurisdiction is discretionary. The High. Court refused to exercise its discretion in petitioners' favour for good reasons. Such does not justify interference under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
'This petition is, therefore, dismissed and the leave prayed for refused.