HARI SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ petitions are connected and they relate to the same issue of the validity of the order passed by the authorities constituted under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The petitions had been filed by the respondents claiming themselves to be the landlords and seeking for ejectment of the various petitioners, who are all admittedly tenants of the properties on the ground that they had refused to execute qabuliats and hence, they were liable to be ejected under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The petitions had been filed before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar. The contention by the landlords was that they had been inducted as tenants and recorded as gair marusis in the village records on a yearly rent of Rs. 26.25 per acre. The leases had commenced before 1947 and the contentions of the landlords were that the amount was grossly low, inequitable and that the batai at not less than 1/3rd share shall be fixed and on the failure to execute a lease for the said rent, they should be ordered to be evicted in the manner contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The contentions of the landlords were accepted and the authorities passed an order directing the petitioners to pay 1/3rd batai and directing the petitioners to make the qabuliats to the said effect under the provisions of the Act. This order was confirmed at the successive tiers of adjudicatory bodies under the Act. These orders are challenged in the writ petitions at the instance of all the tenants.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out to the prayer in the petitions was for a direction for increase of rent or chakota to be changed 1/3rd batai and if the tenants did not accept the same by execution of qabuliatnama, they should be directed to be evicted from the lands in dispute. The counsel would argue that the provisions under Section 9(1)(vii) provides only for an eviction on refusal by the tenants to execute the qabuliatnama and makes no provision for determination of rent if it had not been already agreed or make provision for increase of rent from the already determined amount of Rs. 26.25 per acre. The counsel would state that they are governed by independent provisions before a different authority under the Punjab Tenancy Act. Section 22 of the Punjab Tenancy Act allows for enhancement of cash rents of occupancy tenants and the procedure for carrying out such an enhancement is by institution of a suit before a Revenue Court in the manner provided under Section 24 of the Act. The Revenue Court shall exercise the power under Section 77(2)(a) as a "first group" tenant for enhancement or reduction of rent and without following the procedure mentioned under the Act, a summary proceeding under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act could not have been initiated.

(3.) The learned counsel for the landlords would contend that even in the absence of petition under the Punjab Tenancy Act, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act itself contains a provision through Section 12 that sets out the maximum amount that shall be payable by a tenant for any land held by him. This must be understood as the rent which could be fixed by the authority by a direction that such a rent as provided under Section 12 to be paid in a proceeding under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act itself. According to him, it shall be unnecessary to file independent petition before the Revenue Court in the manner contemplated under the Punjab Tenancy Act. The counsel would refer me to the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Vasandha Ram and another Versus The Sate of Haryana and others, 1982 PunLJ 452 that dealt with the situation of a landlord applying for a direction for execution of the qabuliatnama through a petition filed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. In that case, the landlord had contended for a direction for execution at Rs. 500 per acre per year under Rule 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules and at the time of trial, he gave up a plea for Rs. 500/- per acre and sought for a contention that it shall be at the rate of 1/3rd batai. This prayer had been accepted and the tenants had preferred an appeal against the order and further revision to the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner met with the same result. Before the High Court, it was contended on behalf of the tenants, as it is contended now, that the Special Collector will have had no jurisdiction to get qabuliatnama executed for 1/3rd batai and that the procedure under the Security of Land Tenures Act did not contain any express power for determination of rent. The Court rejected the contention of the tenant and upheld the order already passed by the Special Collector on a finding that the order under Section 9 empowering him to eject a tenant for non-execution of qabuliatnama must be read constituting an inherent power to fix the rent also at a rent not exceeding 1/3rd batai.