BAL SINGH Vs. SWARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby he had allowed the writ petition preferred by Swaran Singh-respondent.

(2.) Some area of agricultural land owned by Bal Singh-appellant was declared surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Swaran Singh-respondent was re-settled on a part of the land so declared surplus in accordance with the aforesaid Act and the Rules framed thereunder. According to the then statutory provisions, the appellant continued to be the owner of the land which had been declared surplus and Swaran Singh-respondent after re-settlement thereon became his tenant. The case of the respondent-Swaran Singh was that the appellant had refused to accept rent from him and, therefore, he preferred an application dated May 5, 1970 under Section 14-A(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for the deposit of rent. As a counter-blast the appellant-landord is alleged to have filed an application under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant, on the ground that he had failed to pay rent without sufficient cause. In these proceedings the ejectment of respondent No. 1, Swaran Singh was ordered by the Assistant Collector on April 7, 1971 on the finding that the tenant had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause. An appeal preferred by the respondent-tenant against the order of ejectment failed before the Collector vide his order dated January 11, 1972. A revision carried against the said dismissal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on June 26, 1973 and further the Financial Commissioner by his impugned order dated November 21, 1974 upheld the orders of the revenue authorities below. All these orders of ejectment were sought to be impugned in the writ petition.

(3.) It deserves recalling that before the Financial Commissioner, Swaran Singh tenant-respondent, had challenged the orders of ejectment on a twin ground-firstly, that he was not liable to be ejected as he had not failed to pay the rent regularly and in fact the landlord had refused to accept the same; secondly, the legal ground pressed was that the orders of ejectment were inoperative in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973. On the first ground that the learned Financial commissioner affirmed the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the three Courts below. On the second contention as well, he took the view that Section 17 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973 was not attracted to the case as the order of ejectment is not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973, as regards the ejectment of tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent.