RAJ KANTA Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances in which these four appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters, Patent have arisen out of the common judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing three writ petitions (Civil Writs 18, 19 and 53 of 1963) filed by the tenants -Respondents and dismissing one writ petition (Civil Writ 2767 of 1964) which had been filed by the landowner Appellant may first be surveyed briefly.

(2.) PERA Ram, Ganga Ram, Bhago and Kalu Ram were tenants of Mrs. Raj Kanta Appellant on different portions of her agricultural land. In order to decide all these four appeals which raise a common question of law, relating to the interpretation of Clause (ii) of Sub -section (1) of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. (10 of 1953) as subsequently amended (hereinafter called the Act), it would be enough to give the sequence of events relating to the cases of Pera Ram, Ganga Ram and Bhago (hereinafter collectively, referred to as the tenants), since the chronology of events in the cases of all these three tenants is exactly the same. Though the dates in respect of the case of Kalu Ram are not the same, the difference therein is not material for purposes of resolving the controversy involved in the appeal against him.

(3.) THE orders in Kalu Ram's case followed the same pattern up to the stage of the decision by the Commissioner. His petition for revision was, however, decided by Shri Sarup Krishan, Financial Commissioner, and the same was allowed giving rise to the filing of Civil Writ 2767 of 1964, by the landowner.