NEKI S O BAKHATAWAR Vs. SATNARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on August 7, 1984 in C. W. P. No. 3447/84 dismissing the writ petition in limine.

(2.) The appellant-tenant admittedly was in possession for the past 50 years. of the demised land. As per the contract, he is liable to pay 1/3rd of the produce to the landlord. The respondent, claiming to be General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the landlord, filed an application under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) . The appellant pleaded that he has paid the rent for all the years except for the rabi crop in the year 1978 due to failure of crops in that year; he was not obtaining any receipt on account of faith in the GPA of the landlord. The primary authority held that on the admission made by the appellant that he had not paid rent, for the year 1978, he is liable to be ejected. The appeal was dismissed summarily. The revision, though all the contentions of the appellant were heard, has been decided against him. As stated earlier, the writ petition was dismissed in limine. Thus , this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Shri K. K. Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the view taken by the authorities is not correct in law. Since he has been paying the rent regularly and there was no practice of obtaining receipt in proof of payment of it, the appellant was under the bona fide belief and did not obtain the receipt from the landlord. Tenant frankly admitted that due to failure of the crop in the year 1978, he could not pay the share of the crop but subsequently he had paid the same. It is his further contention that under Section 9(a) of the Act read with Section 70 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, on an application filed by the tenant for determination of the compensation for improvement of the lands effected by him unless it is decided and value of improvements determined and paid, he is not liable to ejectment and, therefore, even the order of the ejectment is illegal.