1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of Cour against the judgment of the High Court, dated 11-10-1988 has arisen in the f flowing circumstances:--- The respondents Nos.5 and 6 instituted a suit in the Court of Revenue EA.C., Charsadda against the petitioner for the recovery of share of produce from land measuring 147 Kanals 17 Marlas for the crops of Kharif 1970 upto Rabi 1973 with the prayer of his ejectment. A decree against the petitioner for payment of Rs,8,871 at the rate of Rs,80 per Jarib per annum was passed in favour of the respondents. However, their prayer for ejectment was dismissed. On appeal by the respondents, the order of ejectment of the petitioner was passed by the Collector, Charsadda. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division, his revision petition before the Revenue Board and his writ petition in the High Court were dismissed. Ultimately the petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal in this Court in 1984.
2. ' In the meanwhile in 1976 the respondents filed a suit for enhancement of the lease rate from Rs,80 per Jarib per annum to Rs,500 which was ultimately allowed by the Additional Commissioner on 19-4-1982 with effect from Kharif 1976. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was however dismissed. So was his writ petition in the High Court. The petitioner's petition for leave to appeal in this Court was converted into appeal bearing number CA. 105/84 and allowed and the case remanded alongwith four other cases to the High Court on 3-4-1984. After the remand the cases were disposed of on the basis of joint compromise statement of the parties on 13-10-1986.
3. ' After the compromise having been reached between the parties, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs,92,220 at the enhanced rate as arrears from Rabi 1982 till Kharif 1987 in the Court of the Revenue E.A.C. Charsadda on 4-8-1987 within one year from the date of compromise. The respondents preferred execution proceedings for ejectment of the petitioner with reference to the order of the Collector, Charasadda, dated 14-3-1979 but failed and the petition dismissed on 20-10- 1986. Their appeal was also dismissed by the Collector, Charsadda on 24-6-1987. The respondents then preferred a revision petition which by an order, dated 30-1-1988 was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar. The further revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 5-5-1988 and so was his writ petition.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the various orders passed in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the compromise arrived at between the parties on 13-10-1986 which is couched in the following words:-- "We have agreed that "from" the date of the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 19-4-1982 the petitioner tenant are "ready" to pay the lease amount at the rate of 500 per Jarib per annum.
5. The payment "already"made is to be adjusted from this amount "and the arrear" is to be paid within on year and "thereafter" the rent "is to be paid" at the same rate." (Underlining is ours).
6. ' He submitted that the writ petition was disposed of by the High Court in terms of the above compromise on 13-10-1986. The sole ground that the learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us is that since the petitioner had deposited the arrears of lease at the enhanced rate of Rs,500 per Jarib per annum within one year of the order of the High Court dated 13-10-1986, the compromise created a new tenancy. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be ejected for the crops of 1970-73.
7. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we think that the question whether the compromise arrived at between the parties in the suit for recovery at the enhanced rate of produce, is to be interpreted so as to create a new tenancy, needs consideration, in the context of its background.
8. ' Learned counsel for the respondents has himself brought to our notice order, dated 30-3-1987 passed by this Court whereby the Petition for Leave to Appeal No,215-P of 1984 filed by the appellant was not pressed/dismissed as follows:--- "States that a compromise has taken place between the parties, therefore, he does not press this petition.
9. ' Dismissed accordingly."
10. ' It is thus possible to properly interpret the compromise reached between the parties before the High Court after the scrutiny of the various stages through which the disputes between the parties passed; both regarding the non-payment of cash Batai lease money and the appellant's liability to ejectment. The resume of the various proceedings summarised by the office is as follows:--- "(1) On 4-6-1973 suit was filed by the landlord for recovery of produce and ejectment in the Court of Revenue, E.A.C. Charsadda. Decree for produce was passed, however, the prayer for ejectment was dismissed vide order dated 2-2-1978.
(2) Landlord filed an appeal in the Court of Collector for ejectment and the appeal was accepted and order for ejectment was passed on 14-3-1978.
(3) Further appeal by the tenant (appellant here) was tiled in the Court of Additional Commissioner against the ejectment and Revision petition against the order of produce. Both the Appeal and Revision were dismissed vide order dated 2-3-1981.
(4) Two Revisions before M.B.R. By the tenant were filed and the same dismissed vide order dated 3-11-1983.
(5) Writ petition by the tenant was also dismissed on 6-5-1984.
(6) Civil petition for leave to appeal was filed but the same was dismissed as not pressed on 30-3- 1987.
11. II
(1) In the year 1976 landlord tiled a suit for enhancement of rate of rent in the Court of Additional Collector, the suit was decreed and the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs,115 instead of Rs,500 as demanded vide order dated 22-3-1978.
(2) Two appeals were filed one by the landlord and other by the tenant. Landlord prayed for further enhancement while the prayer of the tenant was for dismissal of the suit. Appeal of landlord was dismissed and the appeal of the tenant was allowed vide order dated 24-4-1979.
(3) Revision by the landlord was allowed and the case was remanded vide order dated 2-3-1981.
(4) On remand Additional Collector fixed the rate to "half Batai" vide order dated 15-8-1981.
(5) Appeal by the tenant and Revision by the landlord in the Court of Additional Commissioner.
12. Appeal dismissed and revision allowed and the rate of rent was fixed to Rs,500 vide order dated 19- 4-1982.
(6) Revision by the tenant dismissed on 3-11-1983.
(7) Writ petition by the tenant dismissed on 6-2-1984.
(8) Tenant filed C.P.LA. No,23 of 1984 in the Supreme Court the same was converted into appeal and the Appeal No, 105/84 allowed on 3-4-1984 and the case was remanded to the High Court.
(9) After remand the case was disposed of alongwith other case in accordance with the joint compromise statements of the parties on 13-10-1986.
III
(1) Execution application by the landlord was dismissed on 20-11-1986 on the ground of compromise arrived between the parties in the High Court.
(2) Appeal by the landlord also dismissed on 24-6-1987.
(3) Revision by the landlord allowed and execution proceedings were restored vide order, dated 30-1-1988.
(4) Further revision by the tenant dismissed on 5-5-1988.
(5) Writ petition by the tenant dismissed on 11-10-1988."
13. ' One crucial stage in this lengthy unfortunate litigation is when this Court passed a remand order on 10-4-1984. It was then noticed that parties, had already started negotiations for settling the matter out of Court. The following observations in order of remand by this Court are significant:-- "It needs to be noticed that the parties also sought time to discuss the question of settlement out of Court. The appellants offered to increase the lease money to Rs,300 per annum per Jareeb while the response from the opposite side was that the appellants would be refunded certain amounts paid by them to the landlords and that on this condition the appellants should not insist on continuing as tenants on the land in dispute. Despite the genuine effort of both the learned counsel the parties did not reach any settlement. We accordingly heard the appeals on merits."
14. (Underlining is ours).
15. ' The judgment of remand by this Court is reported as Akram v. Member, Board of Revenue 1984 SCM R 1000.
16. ' The picture is thus clear that the appellant's petition for leave to appeal against original order of ejectment on account of failure to pay the produce was not pressed and thus dismissed. The date of the compromise before the High Court on account of which the dispute between the parties was settled finally is 13-10-1986 while the date of the dismissal of the appellant's petition for leave to appeal as not pressed is 30-3-1987. From this it is clear that the petition for special leave to appeal was not even argued on merits because the petitioner therein (the appellant herein) was satisfied with the compromise of 13-10-1986. The judgment of remand of this Court reported in 1984 supports the foregoing assumption, namely, that the appellant's cause stood fructified on account of the compromise. The Court had noted even then that the appellant had offered the increase of the Batai from Rs,80 to Rs,300 while the landlord's insistence then was on discontinuing the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents' plea regarding rate of rent which would have satisfied them, was Rs,500 per Jareeb. And this is what ultimately was agreed by the appellant to be paid by him. The arrears at the same time at enhanced rate also, were to be paid within one year of the compromise. All this shows that the parties had agreed that the appellant shall not suffer ejectment as earlier ordered and which was then the subject-matter of petition for leave to appeal in this Court.
17. ' This additional assumption gets further strengthened by the use of the expression "thereafter' in the last sentence of the compromise statement already reproduced. The sentence reads as follows:--- "The payment already made is to be adjusted from this amount and the arrear is to be paid within one year and thereafter rent is to be paid at the same rate."
18. Thus the expression "thereafter" and the word "therefore" in the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, respectively which are proof positive of the fact that the ejectment of the appellant was not to take place and the tenancy, therefore, was extended by the addition of new term involving the increased rate of Batai. It may also be mentioned that these conclusions do get support also from the recollection by the one of us. At the earlier hearings in two rounds in this Court of the same matter, he was a member of both the Benches.
19. ' In the light of the foregoing discussion this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the Assistant Collector dismissing the application for execution of the decree for ejectment against the appellant is restored. The other orders of the subordinate authorities, contrary to the above findings and order, are also set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.