ABHE RAM Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 3119, 3408, 3409 and 3454 of 1968. The point involved in all of them is the same.

(2.) THE tenants in all these petitions made applications under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for purchase of the land under their tenancies. In two petitions Nos. 3408 and 3453 of 1968, the landlords had applied earlier for the eviction of the tenants and the tenants' petitions to purchase the land were made a few months thereafter, whereas in the other two petitions Nos. 3119 and 3409 of 1968, the purchase applications were made earlier to the applications by the landlords for eviction of the tenants. All these applications under, Section 18 were allowed by the Assistant Collector and so also the applications for eviction. The matter ultimately came up before the Financial Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner passed the following order which is the subject -matter of dispute in all the petitions:

(3.) BEFORE parting with the judgment, we may set at rest one contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents. His* contention is that it is immaterial when the application under Section 18 is made by the tenant to purchase the land. If there is an order of eviction, that application has to be rejected. This does not follow from the decision of the Supreme Court. It is curious that the learned Counsel insisted that this result follows from the decision of the Supreme Court, whereas the decision of the Supreme Court is clearly an authority for the view that if on the date of Section 18 application, there is no order of eviction, Section -18 application cannot be defeated on the ground that subsequently an order for the eviction of the tenant has been passed. The relevant date to determine whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant is the date when the Section -18 application is made. If on that date that relationship subsists, the tenant is entitled to purchase the land no matter that the order of eviction is passed against him on a later date. This is how we understand the Supreme Court decision and this would be clear if my judgment in Ear Sarup v. The Financial Commissioner, 1965 P.L.J. 178, is read in conjunction with the Division Bench judgment reported as Giani v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 1969 P.L.J. 226 :, I.L.R. 1970 (2) P&H 700, wherein the Division Bench, while dealing with my judgment, observed as follows: