SEWA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, (APPEALS), PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three writ petitions are connected and deal with the issue of nature of right that a tenant holds within the tenants' permissible area as described under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The facts are not in dispute.

(2.) Fakir Chand was owner of 78.30 standard acres under the Land Reforms Act, 1953 (for brevity, 'the 1953 Act'). Under 1953 Act, the land owner was entitled to retain 30 standard acres. His permissible area Was declared by 30 standard acres and the permissible area of tenants' holding was 32 standard acres and the properties that had been sold which was with the vendees holding was in an extent of 16-6 1/2 standard acres. In the manner in which, the holdings got distributed, there was no surplus. Fakir Chand who held his own 30 standard acres and who was the owner of 32.7 standard acres which was the permissible holding of tenants gifted the property to his four sons on'22.10.1971. The respondents No. 5 and 6 Herein were the persons who were holding the properly within the tenants' permissible area. Sewa Singh, petitioner before this Court and who was a donee, filed a petition for ejectment under Section 9(2)(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land tenures Act on the ground of default of payment of rent and under Section 14A(2X) for obtaining eviction for non-payment after notice. These petitions had been dismissed by the Assistant Collector Grade-I and the appeals filed by the landlord to the Collector were accepted and in pursuance of the decision, the landlord took possession of the property also. Further appeals had been filed by the tenants to the Commissioner (Appeals), who gave a finding. mat the landlord was entitled to recover the rent for the use of the land, but shall not have any right to seek ejectment of the tenants. Against this order, a revision had been filed to the Financial Commissioner by the petitioner, which has been dismissed. These orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, are in challenge in the three connected writ petitions.

(3.) The Collector, who accepted the contention of the landlord in ordering ejectment, found that the decision of the Assistant Collector Grade-I that the tenant could not be ejected by the landlord from the tenants permissible area, was not correct A tenant holding property within the permissible area and who had not purchased the land under tenancy, had the same obligation for payment of rent as an ordinary tenant had. The Collector's reasoning was perceived by the Commissioner to project two conundrums: (i) if the landowner was allowed to eject a tenant in terms of Section 14 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, men the effect of ejectment would be to give additional area to the landowner in addition to his permissible area declared, (ii) if a tenant actually vacates the property in his possession, it can never pass to the land owner for the area released would always become available only to State, Government for utilization ''under the scheme and the land owner could not take back possession. The Commissioner found that the tenant's obligation to purchase of property was actually pending at mat time but since the purchase rights did not fructify, the land owner would be free to recover the rent for the use of land but did not have right to secure ejectment of the tenants. When this order rejecting the land owners' right to seek an ejectment was challenged before the Financial Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner held that the property held within the permissible area of the tenant cannot be allowed to go back and. there was no question of release of the tenants' permissible area in the lands of the landowner.