' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 13-3-1995 passed in Civil Revision No,41 of 1995.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent was granted lease for dealing with the sale of kerosine oil for a period of 3. Years vide agreement dated 22-3-1973. The lease was renewed from time to time. The respondent, however, approached the Chief Minister, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar vide application dated 9-3-1986 stating therein that his lease expiring in the year 1987 be extended for 99 years. Persuant to the orders of the Chief Minister, the Provincial Government vide its Letter No,SO (LG.III)2(3)86 dated 5-12-1987 granted extension of lease for 30 years in favour of the respondent. This was followed by a lease agreement, dated 20th December, 1987 executed between the Municipal Committee, Abbottabad, petitioner herein and Subhan Beg respondent herein whereby the premises in question were leased out from 1st January, 1988 to 31st December, 2017.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the extension of lease prayed for by the respondent was declined by the Director-General, Local Bodies and Rural Development Department, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar. However, the respondent succeeded in obtaining lease illegally. In the meantime, Council of Municipal Committee was suspended. However, after restoration of the Council, it passed a Resolution No,282 dated 31-1-1989 recommending to the Provincial Government to reduce the lease period from 30 years to 3 years. Ultimately, the Provincial Government accorded approval to the Resolution whereupon the respondent was informed by letter dated 15-2-1989 that his lease for 30 years has been cancelled and a fresh lease agreement for 3 years be executed.
' .The respondent being aggrieved, filed a civil suit to challenge the aforesaid letter. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Abbottabad vide judgment and decree dated 17-9-1991. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15-11-1994. Revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Peshawar High Court vide judgment dated 13-3-1995. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was not entitled to reduce the lease period from 30 years to 3 years unilaterally without affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent, the Courts below should have permitted the petitioner to initiate proceedings afresh against the respondent in accordance with law and after serving him with a show-cause notice of the proposed cancellation. The precise submission was that the impugned judgment has the effect of debarring the petitioner from initiating proceedings afresh against the respondent in accordance with law and failure to do so has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.
5. It is next contended that whether in the face of the provisions of Rule 7(2) of the North-West Frontier Province, Local Councils (Property) Rules, 1980 contemplating leasing out any immovable property of a Local Council for a period not more than 3 years, could the premises in dispute be leased out for a period of 30 years.
6. It is next contended that the first proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 7 (ibid) contemplates disposal of the. Local Councils' Property in the shape of shops, markets, or in the form of any other commercial scheme on rent through open auctions or sealed tenders as may be determined by the Local Council, therefore, grant of lease in favour of the respondent for a period of 30 years was violative of the said provision.
7. It was further contended that in terms of the second proviso to the said rule, if the Local Council is not desirous of disposing of any such property through auction or sealed tenders, the prior approval of the Government is mandatory whereas in the instant case no such approval was validly obtained.
7. Lastly, it was argued that grant of lease in favour of the respondent for E a period of 30 years was violative of rule 7 (ibid) but the learned Judge in Chambers has fallen into an error in disregarding this aspect.
' Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above points.