RUSTAM, ETC. Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -landlords impugned the order of the Financial Commissioner dated December 10, 1979 (Annexure P. 4) whereby the decree for the ejectment of respondents Nos. 5 to 11 has been set aside.

(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this controversy are not much in dispute. The petitioners sought the ejectment of the respondents on the ground that they were small landowners -and -respondent No. 6, Bishan Dass, who was initially a tenant under them had sublet the land in question to the other respondents, that is, respondent Nos. 5 and 7 to 11. Respondents Nos. 6 to 11 admitted this claim of the petitioners while respondent No. 5, Dalsher, sought to contest it. The case pleaded by Dalsher while denying the claim of the petitioners to the effect that either they were small landowner or he himself was a sublessee, was that he had actually entered into an agreement with the petitioners to purchase the land under his tenancy, for a sum of Rs. 20500/ - and had paid Rs. 6500/ - to the petitioners by way of advance. What he sought to plead was that on account of this agreement between the parties, he was no more a tenant under the petitioners.

(3.) THE order of the Financial Commissioner, Annexure P. 4, is now impugned by Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the learned Financial Commissioner has taken a wholly erroneous view of the relevant law. The learned counsel maintains that in spite of the repeal of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, a binding contract had come into existence between the petitioner and Dalsher respondent and the fulfilment of that by the petitioners would amount to an admission of the claim on the part of Dalsher and the same admission would be admissible in evidence against him under S. 20 of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of this proposition of his, the learned counsel relies on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Mrs. Florabel Skinner and others v. Jai Bajrang Kala Mandir Ram Lila Mandal, Hissar, (1980) 82 P.L.R. 755, wherein the material observations read as follows: -