' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- The petitioners/tenants, in Writ Petition No,799 of 1995, were sued by the respondents/landlord for payment of arrears of rent of agricultural land at the rate of Rs,250 per Jareeb per annum for the period of 1987 to 1989 and also for ejectment by filing a suit in the Court of Revenue E.A.C. In the year 1992. The suit was decreed in lieu of compensation of Rs,27,785, for improvement made by the petitioner (to be paid by the respondents). Appeal filed by petitioner failed. However, revision filed by petitioner before the Commissioner, partially succeeded by setting aside the decree of ejectment while maintaining the decree for arrears of rent. The respondents/landlord filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was accepted and the modified decree of Commissioner was amended by restoring that of the two Courts below and now the present writ petition by the tenant.
2. The subject-matter of Writ Petition No,800 of 1995 (Amir Nawaz v. Member, Board of Revenue etc.) filed by tenant is for correction of entries Khasra Girdawari of the disputed property between the same parties, hence, both writ petitions are to be disposed of by this common judgment.
3. According to the petitioners the Khasra Girdawari was changed by Revenue Officers unilaterally by incorporating Rs,250 per Jareeb per annum instead of 'A Batai. The petitioners' claim, up to the Board of Revenue was dismissed in the following terms:-- "During the course of arguments, the counsel for petitioners conceded that the entries made by the Revenue Officer, in the column of Lagan as Rs,250 per Jareeb per annum are correct and further stated that they have made payment of decretal amount of Rs,250 per Jareeb per annum. He also produced a copy of the receipt, dated 20-3-1995 which is placed on file.
' Since the counsel for the petitioners has accepted the decision of the lower Courts fixing Rs,250 as annual lease amount, the revision petition being infructuous is rejected with no order as to costs."
In view of the above Writ Petition No,800 of 1995 is dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No,799 of 1995 has contended that after exercise of revisional power by the Commissioner, the Board of Revenue was left with no revisional power and its interference in the exercise of such power is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. His point of submission was that after judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in case Qazilbash Wakf 'v. Chief Land Commissioner PLD 1990 SC 99 repealing of the provisions of M.L.R. 115 and particular para.25, the judgment of Supreme Court in case Haji Samad Khan and others v.
Khalid Khan and others 1985 SCM R 770 holding second revision before the Board of Revenue after exercise of 1st revision jurisdiction by the Commissioner, as competent has lost its efficacy.
5. His this contention is untenable as sub-para.7 of para.25 has not been repealed and the Honourable Supreme Court even thereafter, in the subsequent judgment has re-enforced the same law laid down earlier, in the judgment Haji Jamroz Khan v. Wazir Muhammad and 16 others 1992 SCM R 2103 delivered on 18-5-1992 much after the judgment in Qazilbash Wakf v. Chief Land Commissioner case wherein, after discussion the case-law on, the subject and placing reliance on Faiz Ahmad and 16 others v. Muhammad Sharif Khan and 8 others 1991 SCM R 689 second revision before Board of Revenue was held to be competent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that due to the dispute over the rate of rent between the parties, the petitioner could not pay the rent and they cannot be held as a wilful defaulter. Subsequently, they agreed to the payment of rent and which they have paid and in view of the principle of section 114 of Transfer of Property Act their ejectment cannot be ordered. None of his these two submissions are having force. The dispute over the rate of rent was finally decided in favour of the respondent/landlord holding their version, with regard to the rate of rent as Rs,250 per year as correct, rather the revision petition in that respect was also decided having become infructuous as the petitioners have conceded. Moreover, it was not the case of the petitioner that they have paid the rent in time, the one which they were admitting. With regard to his other contention, it may be observed that in view of the specific provision of special law N.-W.F.P.
Tenancy Act dealing with the subject-matter the question of applicability of the principle of other laws does not arise. The said statute does not make any difference between defaulter and wilful defaulter and in this respect the law has been laid down in Samar Khan and 6 others v. Safdar and 9 others PLD A 1989 Pesh. 102 wherein it has been held that:-- "No distinction exists between' default and wilful default Failure to pay arrears of rent by tenant to his landlord makes him liable to eviction at the instance of landlord."
' Consequently, Writ Petition No,799 of 1995 is also having no force, and, is dismissed. No order as to costs.