ZAKIRA SULTAN Vs. MUSHRAF MOHAMMAD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Bhopal Division, dated 26-2-64 in Appeal No. 352 /62-63 under which he had rejected the second appeal of the applicants and upheld the decisions of the lower Courts ordering them under section 193 (2) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 to pay Rs. 2,568.75 nP. plus the cost of proceedings to the non-applicants towards the arrears of rent of the occupancy land in question failing which their tenancy will be terminated. The annual rent of the land appears to be Rs. 600 in accordance with the terms of the sub-lease, and the nonapplieant had sued for the recovery of the arrears of rent from the year 1362 Fasli onwards.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicants pressed the following three objections :-

(3.) COMING now to the third objection of the applicants, I think this was not perhaps advanced in the proper way before any of the lower Courts and therefore they have not given any definite decision on this point. Properly put, the objection of the applicants seems to be that action under section 193 can be taken against an occupancy tenant if he fails to pay the rent due to the Bhumiswami before the due date in any agricultural year. The applicants were not occupancy tenants before 2-10-58 and therefore no action could be taken under this provision of law for any default pertaining to any period before 2-10-59. I think this objection is not altogether without substance. A careful perusal of the provision in section 193 will show that it provides for relief to the Bhumiswami by way of the termination of the tenancy of his occupancy tenant in the event of the failure on the part of the occupancy tenant to pay on or before the due date the rent of his occupancy land for the particular agricultural year. This section does not provide for the recovery of arrears of rent, and it would be wrong to take resort to this section for such a purpose. This section is meant for the termination of the tenancy of an occupancy tenant, and non-payment of rent is only one of the causes of action for such termination. Sub-section (2) is intended to soften down that harshness of the action by giving an alternative to an occupancy tenant to escape the rigour of the law by tendering the rent due together with the cost of proceedings. This, however, does not make it a provision for the recovery of arrears of rent. Under this provision of law all that the S.D.O. can legally do is to call upon the occupancy tenant to tender the rent due for the preceding agricultural year together with the cost of proceedings within such period as may be specified by him. This will obviously be only an interim order. If in pursuance of that order, the occupancy tenant pays the rent, the only further order that need be passed in the case is to record this fact and close the proceedings. If the rent is not paid, then alone a final order has to be passed and that can only be to order the termination of the tenancy. Thus the order of the lower Courts calling upon the applicants to pay all the arrears of rent that the non-applicant claims to be due to him is not in accordance with the law under which they have assumed jurisdiction to pass such an order. If the non- applicant wanted to sue the applicants for the recovery of arrears of rent, he should have done so in the proper Court under the proper provision of law. An application under section 193 of the,Code does not entitle him to such a relief.