' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.-This petition for leave to appeal has arisen from the judgment dated 20-5-1999 of a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court whereby the petitoner's writ petition challenging her eviction from a building called Usmania High School, Abbottabad was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are rather variegated. On 7-10-1989 a petition was filed by the respondents Mst. Yasmin Begum and Mst. Robina Begum, hereinafter referred to as the landladies for eviction of the petitioner Mst. Asmat Gul, hereinafter called the tenant, from a building known as Usmania High School, Abbottabad on triple grounds of default in payment of rent, personal need and misuse of property. A prayer for recovery of arrears of rent for eighteen months, April 1988 to September, 1989, amounting to Rs.55,800 was also made. The tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and took the stance-that in the event of eviction she was entitled to get adequate compensation as she had obtained a dilapidated bungalow with a vacant site on lease from the Court of Wards and constructed a school on the premises at a huge cost. The learned Rent Controller framed the following preliminary issues:- "(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists, between the parties?
(2) Relief."
3, Ultimately, the preliminary issue was decided against the tenant by the learned Rent Controller, Abbottabad, vide order dated 16-10-1993, and she was directed to put the landladies in vacant possession of the demised premises within sixty days. The prayer for recovery of arrears of rent was, however, turned down on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and the landladies were directed to move the Civil Court for the purpose.
4. The tenant took the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge, Abbottabad, who in turn made over the appeal to the learned Additional District Judge for disposal. During the pendency of the appeal the tenant submitted an application for expunction of an admission contained in her cross-examination with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between her and legal heirs of the original owner of the property in dispute, namely, Azizullah Khan. The landladies also submitted an application for issuance of a direction to the tenant to deposit the past and the future rent in the Court. The learned Appellate Court, vide order dated 2-5-1994, dismissed the tenant's application and allowed the application moved by the landladies in the terms that the tenant was directed to deposit the monthly rent with effect from April, 1988 to April, 1994 at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month subject to adjustment at the appropriate stage. She was further directed to deposit monthly rent at the same rate before 15th day of each month. The tenant challenged the said order through Writ Petition No.84 of 1994 but it was dismissed in limine by a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court on 13-6-1994. Thereafter, she filed C.P.L.A. No.434 of 1994 in this Court, Leave to appeal was granted on 12-3-1995 and the appeal was disposed of on 22-6-1998 by the consent of the parties in the following terms:- "After hearing learned counsel at some length, this appeal is being disposed of by consent. Without prejudice to the rights of the parties and legal and factual pleas taken by them in the litigation before the High Court, it has been agreed that the amount claimed as arrears at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month for the period from April, 1988 to June, 1998 will be deposited in instalments by the appellant in the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, and the appellant will also deposit future monthly amount of Rs.2,000 per month. Amount calculated at Rs.2000 per month from April, 1988 to June, 1998 comes to Rs.2,46,000.
' It is directed that an amount of Rs.2,46,000 shall be deposited by the appellant with the Additional Registrar/Deputy Registrar of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, in 6 equal instalments of Rs.41,000 each commencing from July, 1998. The first monthly instalment will be deposited on or before 15-7-1998 and the next instalment on or before 15th of next succeeding month and so on. In addition, the appellant shall deposit Rs.2,000 per month commencing from August, 1998 i.e. Current monthly payment for July, 1998, shall be deposited with the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, on or before 15-8-1998 and future monthly payments shall be deposited on or before 15th of each succeeding month. Appellant, who is present in person, states that she is in a position to deposit the instalments as well as the monthly payments as directed above. Deposits of the above amounts shall be without prejudice to the rights of parties and their respective pleas, legal and factual, taken by the parties before the High Court and shall also not confer any right on any party.
' It is informed that the Additional District Judge while hearing the appeal of the appellant has finally decided the appeal and against such final judgment of the Appellate Court, appellant filed a writ petition which is pending in the Peshawar High Court. The High Court may decide such writ petition as early as possible and preferably by February, 1999. The amount deposited by the appellant in the High Court shall be invested in Defence Savings Certificates and the amount so deposited together with profits earned thereon shall belong to the party to whom such amount is directed to be paid by the High Court in the writ petition pending there. Till the disposal of the said writ petition, appellant's possession of the property in dispute shall not be disturbed and the appellant will also not create any charge or encumbrance thereon or part with the possession of the same."
5. The appeal filed by the tenant against the order dated 16-10-1993 of the learned Rent Controller was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Abbottabad on 6-7-1994.. She challenged the validity of the order through Writ Petition No.141 of 1994 but without any success as it was dismissed on 20-5-1999 by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court on merits as well as on the ground that she had failed to deposit the arrears of rent in accordance with the direction of this Court. Feeling aggrieved she had filed this petition for leave to appeal.
' As pointed out earlier, the tenant's writ petition was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the direction of this Court in regard to deposit of rent as well as on merits. The learned A.O.R.
Appearing for the tenant confined his arguments to the first ground, which according to him was the main ground, and adverted to the merits of the case only to this extent that the impugned judgment was silent about the question of compensation for improvements. It was, contended with vehemence that the tenant had duly complied with the direction of this Court and deposited the entire rent.
7.The learned counsel for the landladies, on the other hand, contended that the tenant had violated the direction of this Court by depositing the rent according to her own schedule. However, he submitted at the conclusion of his contention that his clients were willing to give a period of one year to the tenant to vacate the demised premises.
8. The impugned judgment is unexceptionable as the report of the Additional Registrar of the Peshawar High Court Circuit Bench, Abbottabad highlighted therein, which was not challenged, makes it manifest that the tenant had deposited the rent at her leisure and pleasure and not in accordance with the time-frame given by this Court. The said report is worded thus:-- "In obedience to Court diary order dated 25-2-1999, I am to submit that vide august Supreme Court of Pakistan judgment dated 22-6-1998, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.2,46,000 in six equal instalments commencing from 15-7-1998. She was also directed to deposit Rs.2,000 as current rent with each and every instalments of Rs.41,000. Thus, she was supposed to deposit Rs.41,000 plus Rs.2,000 as current rent on 15-7-1998 but she failed to deposit the same. Likewise, the instalment due on 15-8-1998 was also not deposited on due date. However, she deposited Rs.84,000 being the amount of two instalments plus one month's current rent on 27-8-1998.
' 3rd instalment of Rs.41,000 plus Rs.2,000 as current rent was deposited on due date i.e. 15-9- 1998.4th and 5th instalments which were due on 15-10-1998 and 15-11-1998 respectively were not deposited on due dates. However, she deposited Rs.86,000 on 16-11-1998 being the amount of two instalments of two months plus current rent @ Rs.2,000 ' The 6th and last instalment due on 15-12-1998 has not so far been deposited."
9. By way of abundant caution the learned Advocate-on-Record and the learned counsel for the landladies were asked to examine the rent deposit receipts pressed into service by the tenant in the Court. After doing the needful the learned AOR conceded that the rent was not deposited by the tenant in accordance with the direction of this Court.
10. We have been informed that execution proceedings are pending before the learned Rent Controller. If the tenant has filed any objection petition before the Executing Court concerning the superstructure/ improvements the same shall be decided by the Executing Court in accordance with law.
11. For the reasons stated above and with the consent of the learned counsel for the landladies the tenant is allowed a period of one year from today to deliver vacant possession of the property in dispute to the landladies failing which she will be evicted summarily with police assistance and without notice. Meanwhile she will regularly deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month in the office of the Rent Controller before the 15th day of each month. The petition is disposed of accordingly and leave is declined. 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.