GURMEJ SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petitioner was heard by me in the first instance on April 25, 1980. After hearing the arguments on both sides, I came o the conclusion that there was an apparent conflict of opinion regarding the scope conflict of opinion regarding the scope and ambit of Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953(hereinafter to be called the Act) between two Division Benches of this Court in Smt. Sham Kaur v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab 1974 Rev LR 25(Punj) and Balwant Singh v. Sodhi Lal Singh,1966-68 Pun LR 380: (AIR 1966 Punj 483) and keeping I view the importance of the questing of law involved, reference to a Full Bench was necessitated. It is in this background that the writ petition has been heard by the Full Bench.

(2.) For proper appreciation of the different contentions raised on both sides and the important legal question involved, brief reference to the fact of the case is necessary. Some land of Bahadur Singh, petitioner No. 4 was declared surplus under the provisions of the Act which was transferred by him in favour of his two sons and his wife, petitioners nos. 1 to 3 by means of a gift deed, dated May 29, 1955. This gift was ignored and the surplus land was allotted to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in different parcels under Section 10-A of the Act as tenants, who entered into possession on September 29, 1964. The petitioner as landlords filed an application before the Assistant Collector II nd Grade, Revenue, under Section 14-A(ii) of the Act, demanding arrears of rent for the crops from Kharif 1964 to Rabi 1968 in form 'M'. On this notice under form 'N' was issued to the respondents as tenants, according to which they were called upon to pay the arrears of rent within one month. The tenant-respondents filed objection in reply thereto and contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. It was also contended that they had paid rent to petitioner No. 4. The assistant Collector by his order dated March 22, 1969(Annexure A) allowed the objections and dismissed the application of the landlord-petitioners. This order was set aside, in appeal by the Collector by his order, dated August 26, 1969(Annexure B) and the order of ejectment was passed. The same order having been challenged by the tenant before the Commissioner, the case was remanded to the Collector vide his order dated December 10, 1969(Annexure C). However, the Collector, on remand, maintained his earlier order of eviction by his order, dated February 23 1970(Annexure D) This was also set aside by the Commissioner by his order, date August 17, 1970, (Annexure E) and the case was remanded back to the collector for fresh decision on the following two points :

(3.) The Collector, on remand, passed the order of eviction, dated 15th February, 1971(Annexure F).It was held that the rent for Rabi 1965 was not time barred but it was time barred for Kharif 1964,However, for the Purposes of section 14A(ii) of the Act, even time barred rent was due from the tenant and it was their duty to pay the same. It was further held that as the application by the landlords had been filed on May 20, 1968 rent for Rabi 1968 which was to fall due on June 15, 1968 had not become due at the time of filing of the application. From Kharif 1965 to Kharif 1967 rent to the tune of Rs. 2, 429,68 had fallen due and was payable by the tenants, Regarding the contention by the tenants that the rent had been paid to Bahadur Singh petitioner, it was held that the alleged payment had not been proved. In view of these findings the order of ejectment was passed. This time the appeal by the tenants- respondents before the Commissioner had no effect which was dismissed. The matter was still pursued further by way of revision before the Financial Commission, Revenue, Punjab. The learned Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that the tenants had deposited Rs. 194.28 in respect of one crop of 1967, that the rent for the harvest Kharif 1964, being time barred was not due and could not be treated as arrears of rent, that the rent for the harvest year 1967-68 had been deposited by the tenants after the filling of the application under Section 14-A(ii) of the Act and that the rent for the harvest Rabi 1968, had also fallen due. It is also significant to note at this stage that before the collector when the case was heard after the order of remand by the Commissioner for the second time, the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted by the tenants. The learned Financial Commissioner relied on the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab,Chandigarh 1966 Lah LT 77, and held that the order of ejectment could not be passed without affording fresh opportunity to the tenants to make the payment if arrears and rent as the entire rent demanded by the landlords was not due though arrears of rent for some harvests were payable.The revision petition was thus allowed ad it was held that the tenants were liable to pay rent which may be determined on the basis of the produce statement produced before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, for the harvest Rabi 1965 to Rabi 1968 within a month of the order.