SURINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO pieces of land. Two sets of proceedings initiated in the year 1982 for eviction of the petitioner on account of non- payment of rent. Two revenue revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner. Both having been decided against the petitioner vide order dated July 7, 1997, he has filed these two writ petitions. The parties are common. The issue is one - Did the petitioner fail to pay rent without sufficient cause ? Both these petitions can be disposed of by one order. The facts, as averred in Civil Writ Petition No. 2972 of 1998, may be briefly noticed.

(2.) AJIT Singh along with his two sons filed an application for the eviction of the tenant, viz. the present petitioner, from an area measuring 44 Kanals 2 Marlas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 172//16(6-16), 17(7-18), 18/1(8-11), 24(8-0), 25(8-0), 173//20/2(3-6), 21/1(1-11), situate in the revenue estate of Nakodar, on the ground that he had failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause since Kharif 1982. The application was contested on various grounds. It was, inter alia, pleaded that the tenant was not aware of the change of ownership, and that the landlord had not accepted the rent. After consideration of the matter, the Assistant Collector, Nakodar, upheld the claim of the landlord. It was noticed that there was default regarding the payment of rent from Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1978, Rabi 1979 to Kharif 1981 and then from the year 1982 onwards. After examination of the evidence, the Assistant Collector held that the tenant had not been regular in making the payment. No satisfactory explanation had been given. The contention that the landlord was not accepting the payment was rejected. Resultantly, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted. He filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated February 27, 1987. The findings of the Collector were affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated September 11, 1989. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated July 7, 1997.

(3.) AFTER examination of the evidence the Assistant Collector found that the tenant-petitioner had committed a default in payment of rent without sufficient cause. Vide order dated July 16, 1990 the petition for the eviction of the tenant was allowed. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated December 3, 1991. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. The Authority recommended the case for acceptance to the Financial Commissioner. However the Financial Commissioner found that the amount of Rs. 3,740.50 paid by the tenant was a compensation for the crop which was standing at the time of his taking over the possession from the landlord. He had not paid the rent after harvesting the crop. Thus, the recommendation made by the Commissioner was rejected. The petitioner has filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11782 of 1997 to challenge this order.