PUNJAB STATE Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab has filed this second appeal against the judgment dated 24th November, 1967 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the suit instituted by Kirpal Singh for obtaining a declaration and injunction had been decreed. The suit had earlier been dismissed by the Sub-Judge First Class, Patiala, by his judgment dated 22nd March, 1965. None has made an appearance on behalf of the respondent in this Court and hence the appeal was heard ex parte.

(2.) A sum of Rs. 1400/- was being recovered from the plaintiff as the balance amount out of the sum payable by him for running a canteen for the period from 1st April, 1962 to 31st March, 1963. The Collector had initiated proceedings for the recovery of the outstanding amount as arrears of land revenue. The plaintiff raised some such objection as to show that some other canteen had been allowed to run and thus he had not been able to make any profit. He even asserted that he had suffered some loss. Furthermore, it was alleged that there was no valid agreement executed between the parties as envisaged by Article 299 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The main objection taken on behalf of the defendant was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial Court made a reference to section 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. According to this provision, if a person denies his liability for the payment of the arrears he could pay the same under protest and then file a suit for the recovery of that amount if it was stated to be not due. The appellate Court took this view that recovery by the Collector was being made under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. This Act requires the issue of a notice under Section 7 for the payment of rent within a specific period. Notice Exhibit P-2 was said to have been issued but it was found to be defective for this reason that a sum of Rs. 3,812/- was being demanded for the period from 1st June, 1962 to 31st December, 1962. It was held that the amount in dispute related to the last three months of the year 1962-63. No such finding has been given that no amount was in fact due as rent under the lease pertaining to the whole of the year. There may be some formal defect in the notice which was issued to the plaintiff, yet the plaintiff, if he felt aggrieved, had to file an appeal under section 9 of the Punjab Public Premises Act referred to above. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit relating to the recovery is barred by a separate provision of the same Act. The lower appellate court went in error when it tried to discard the provision of section 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act merely on the ground of a defective notice. It was incumbent on the plaintiff to make the payment under protest and then to institute a suit for the recovery of the amount paid. He could not simply sue for obtaining this kind of injunction against the State that it should be restrained from making any recovery. The appeal is consequently accepted. The suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. On account of the non-appearance of the respondent in this Court, there shall be no order as to costs.