PATTU Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil-writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by two tenants of land against whom orders of eviction have been passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, respondent No. 4, on the application of their landlords, respondent Nos. 5 to 8, under Sections 9 and 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter briefly referred to as the Act). The finding was that the petitioners do not pay the rent regularly. An appeal and two revision petitions filed one after the other by the petitioners respectively before the Collector, respondent No. 3, the Commissioner, respondent No. 2, and the Financial Commissioner, respondent No. 1, had also remained unsuccessful, as may appear from copies of their orders, Annexures 'B' to 'E' to the writ petition.

(2.) The orders passed by the respondents have been called in question by Shri Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the following three grounds :-

(3.) As regards Shri Verma's first submission, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been guilty of only a stray default in the payment of rent. About a year before the filing of the ejectment application, the respondent-landowners had applied under Section 14-A(ii) of the Act for recovery of arrears of rent which was described to have remained unpaid for eight crops beginning from Rabi 1965 to Kharif 1968. The petitioners had been able to produce some rent receipts but after granting them allowance for such payments, it was found that a sum of Rs. 660/- was still due from them. The petitioners were, therefore, directed to pay up these arrears within one month of the passing of that order dated 4-3-1970 (Annexure 'A'). Next year, the respondent-landowners had to file a second ejectment application under Sections 9(1)(ii) and 14-A(i) of the Act alleging that the petitioners had again failed to pay up rent for the next two harvests. It was a moot point between the parties whether rent for Kharif 1968 had been paid off or not but the petitioners were, admittedly in arrears with the payment of rent for one more harvest. There is no averment by the petitioners that they had cleared all the arrears in respect of which a decree had been passed against them on 4-3-1970. The petitioners cannot, therefore, argue with any force that they are just sporadic defaulters in respect of a solitary payment so as to get the benefit of the Division Bench ruling in Smt. Raj Kanta's case . The Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe in Kapur Chand V. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab Chandigarh and others,1965 LLT(RR) 132, that where a landlord had to file suits repeatedly for recovery of rent every year, that establishes the very kind of conduct which was contemplated by Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act and that conduct would furnish the landlord with a ground for the eviction of the tenant under Section 14-A(i) of the Act. Shri Awasthy, the learned counsel for the respondents, has also cited a ruling of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab in Geja Singh v Smt. Puro and others,1971 PunLJ 760, which was based on the Supreme Court ruling in Kapur Chand's case. It was observed in Geja Singh's case as follows :-