1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the decision of a Division Bench of Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, dated 13-3-1995 whereby Writ .Petition No, 156 of 1994 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of agricultural land bearing Khasra No, 335 measuring 53 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in village Karmang Bala, Tehsil Mansehra.
3. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 brought a suit for recovery of share of produce in the land as well as for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of share of the produce. The suit was proceeded before the Court of EA.C.-II, Mansehra and by judgment dated 3-5-1992, the petitioner was held defaulter in payment of share of the produce and consequently an /order for his ejectment was passed. The appeal of the petitioner against the order of EA.C.-Ill, Mansehra, was rejected by the Collector on 27-7-1992. A further revision filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Hazara, was also dismissed on 27-1-1993. Second Revision Application before the Member, Board of Revenue (B.O.R.) met the same fate when it was dismissed on 6-6-1994. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, which too was dismissed by the impugned judgment giving rise to the present petition.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that in reply to the ejectment application filed by respondents Nos. 5 and 6, the petitioner had specifically taken the plea that no wilful default was committed in payment of the share of produce as the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 deliberately failed to collect the share of produce from the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to the application filed by the petitioner on 6-11-1986 before the Collector, complaining that the respondents have failed to collect the share of 'Bataee'. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this application of the petitioner was dismissed by Assistant Collector, Mansehra, on 30th of September 1987 and against the order no appeal was filed by the petitioner. In the suit for ejectment filed by respondents Nos. 5 and 6, the EA.C. After recording evidence of the parties reached the conclusion that in so far the claim of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for their share in the produce for the period beyond three years from the date of filing of the petition, was concerned, it was time-barred and as such it could not be recovered from the petitioner. However, in respect of the remaining claim of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 for the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the ejectment case it was allowed and as the petitioner was also held to be defaulter, accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the tenanted land. From the above-stated facts, it is quite clear that the petitioner did not pay anything to the respondents for 3 years in respect of their share in the produce and their claim was defeated as the petitioner resisted the same on the ground of limitation. The petitioner having admittedly not paid the share of respondents Nos.5 and 6 for 3 years and succeeded in defeating their claim on ground of limitation, could not claim any relief on equitable ground. The contention of the petitioner that he was willing and ready to pay the produce but it was deliberately not collected by respondents Nos.5 and 6 and as such he could not be held to be a wilful or deliberate defaulter, has no merit. As stated earlier at the time the application for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of the share of produce was filed, the petitioner had not paid the share in the produce to the respondents for 6 years, In the application which the petitioner had filed before the Revenue Authorities before filing of the ejectment case by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 complaining that the share of produce was not being collected by respondents Nos. 5 and 6, no offer was made for payment of the share of the produce for the entire 6 years' period. There is also nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was willing at any time to deposit the share of produce for the entire period of six years, In these circumstances, the order of eviction passed by the Courts below on the ground of default, is not open to any exception. On the legal plain the case of the petitioner was governed under section 24 of the North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called as `Act of 1950') as the tenancy was for an unspecified period. Section 24 of the Act 1950 which applied in the present case reads as follows:- "24.--(1) A tenant who does not hold for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order of any competent authority, may be ejected at the end of the third year from the commencement of this Act and not before and on any of the following grounds, before the expiration thereof, namely:--
(a) That he has failed to pay the rent on the date when it falls due;
(b) that he has removed the whole or part of the produce from the thrashing-floor before it is divided;
(c) that he has used the land comprised in the tenancy in the manner which renders it unfit for the purposes for which he held it;
(d) where the rent is payable in kind, that he has without sufficient cause, failed to cultivate that land in the manner or to the extent customary in which the land is situate.
(2) No landlord, in the case of a tenant who does not hold for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order of competent authority shall entrance the rent during the period that he is not entitled to eject the tenant under the last preceding subsection."
5. A careful reading of section 24 ibid will show that a tenant who holds the tenancy in respect of agricultural land for an unspecified period under any contract or a decree or order of any competent authority has been given protection against his ejectment from the land under his tenancy for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of his tenancy. However, no protection of any kind is available to such a tenant after expiry of the period of 3 years from the date of commencement of his tenancy. Even during the protection period of 3 years mentioned in section 24(1) ibid, such tenant could be evicted on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of section 24 ibid. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that in view of sections 25 and 28 of the. Act no order of ejectment could be passed against the petitioner on account of default in payment of the share of produce to the landlord. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct. Section 25 of the Act places restrictions on the rights of the landlord to eject a tenant from the agricultural land. It provides that a tenant of the agricultural land shall not be evicted except through execution of decree of ejectment passed in his favour. It further provides that such a tenant can also be evicted if a decree for arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed against him and the same remains unsatisfied. A tenant who does not hold tenancy rights for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order of competent authority can also be evicted under section 25(b) of the Act. However, the procedure to be followed for eviction of a tenant whose case falls within the ambit of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of section 25 of the Act is regulated under section 26 to 28 of the Act. It is, therefore, quite clear to us that where a decree for ejectment has been passed against a tenant who is holder of agricultural land, he can be evicted by the landlord by executing that decree. However, where a decree is only for arrears of the rent which remains unsatisfied then such a tenant as well as the tenant who does not hold the tenancy for a fixed term under the contract or decree or order of a Court, can be evicted by following the procedure prescribed under sections 26 to 28 of the Act. In the case before us, there was a decree of ejectment passed by the Revenue Authorities against the petitioner and, therefore, his ejectment could take place as provided in the first part of section 25 of the Act through execution of that decree. However, the time for ejectment of the petitioner is to be regulated as provided under section 30 of the Act. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.