RAJ KANTA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by certificate are directed against a common judgment dated February 5, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which a Letters Patent Appeal against a decision of the single Judge was dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and all the appeals involve a short point of law relating to the interpretation of S. 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The history of the case has been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same. Shorn of unnecessary details the appeals arose out of applications made by Pera Ram, Ganga Ram, Bhago and Kalu Ram who were the tenants of agricultural land owned by Mrs. Raj Kanta, the appellant in these appeals. The tenants made separate applications under S. 18 of the Act on September 4, 1961 for purchasing the land held by them from Mrs. Raj Kanta (hereinafter called the 'land owner'). These applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector on October 31, 1961. Accordingly, the tenants deposited the first instalment in November 1961. Ultimately, however, the tenants did not pay the rent of the respective holdings for Kharif 1961. It is common ground that the last date by which the rent for Kharif 1961 was payable by the tenants to the land owner was January 15, 1962 and that the tenant did not pay the rent and did not show sufficient cause for the same. In view of the default, the landowner filed separate applications under S. 9 (1) (ii) of the Act on the ground that as the tenants had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause, they were entitled to be ejected by the land owner. The applications for ejectment were, however, dismissed but on appeal the Collector allowed the appeals by his order dated May 31, 1962. Second appeals preferred by the tenants in the ejectment proceedings were dismissed by an order dated 5-11-62 of the Commissioner and ultimately upheld by the Financial Commissioner by his order dated December 21, 1962.

(3.) Having failed before the Revenue Courts, the tenants-respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court which was heard by a single Judge. But in the case of Kalu Ram the Financial Commissioner allowed the petition and rejected the prayer for his ejectment by the land owner as a result of which the land owner filed a writ petition in the High Court. All the petitions were consolidated and heard together, by the single Judge who allowed the writ petition of the tenants and quashed the order of the Financial Commissioner directing ejectment of the tenants. The writ petition of the land owner against Kalu Ram was, however, dismissed. Hence, the four appeals by the land owner-appellant in this Court.