GEETAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dtd. 6/5/2014 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent no.1, order dtd. 22/11/2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent no.2 as well as order dtd. 5/5/2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondents no.5 and 6 had filed an application seeking eviction of the petitioners from land measuring 30 kanals 12 marlas compromised in khewat no.28, 996 khatoni no.36, 2105 M: 86//10/2 (6-18), 11(8-0), 9/2 (6-12), 10/1(1-2), 12(8-0) situated at village Malout, Tehsil Malout, as per Jamabandi for the year 2004-05. It was the case of respondents no.5 and 6 that the petitioners, who were tenants in the premises in question, had not paid rent for the crops Sauni 2008, Kharif 2009 and Sauni 2009 inspite of respondents no.5 and 6 having repeatedly asked the petitioners to pay the said rent either in cash or in kind. The said application was instituted on 2/2/2010 and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Malout, vide order dtd. 31/8/2010, had dismissed the said application but had directed the petitioners to deposit 1/3rd share of the crops Sauni 2008, Kharif 2009 and Sauni 2009 with 8% interest within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of the order in the treasury. Respondents no.5 and 6 had filed an appeal before the Collector, Sri Muktsar Sahib who, vide order dtd. 5/5/2011 (Annexure P-2), allowed the said appeal and ordered the eviction of the present petitioners from the land in question. The Collector after considering the entire record found that the present petitioners had failed to produce any record which showed that they had given the share of crops to respondents no.5 and 6 for Sauni 2008, Kharif 2009 and Sauni 2009. The arguments of the counsel for the appellants (i.e., respondents no.5 and 6 herein) to the effect that there was no receipt on file to prove that any rent was paid as well as the argument raised by the petitioners (herein) to the effect that the owners had not given any receipt, were also taken into consideration before passing the said order. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dtd. 6/5/2014 (Annexure P-7), dismissed the said revision petition after observing that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was established on record and it had been concurrently found by the authorities that the petitioners herein had failed to pay the due rent to the respondents. The facts of the case were duly considered in paragraph 2 of the said order and even the arguments of both the counsels were noticed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said order. The arguments of learned counsel for respondents no.5 and 6 herein to the effect that law was well settled inasmuch as even a single default would be enough to order the eviction of a tenant was also taken note of. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case the petitioners are the tenants since the past 40 years of the land in question and were on 1/3rd batai and respondents no.5 and 6 had purchased the property on 11/4/2008 and had thereafter filed the eviction petition on 2/2/2010 on the ground of non-payment of rent. It is submitted that the petitioners have been paying rent for all these years and thus, it is not plausible that they would not pay rent for Sauni 2008, Kharif 2009 and Sauni 2009. It is further submitted that in fact the rent was paid but no receipt was issued by the private respondents and thus, the impugned orders evicting the present petitioners from the land in question are illegal and against law. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade dtd. 31/8/2010 to contend that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade accepted the arguments of the petitioners and had rejected the arguments raised by the counsel for respondents no.5 and 6 and that the said order has been illegally set aside by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. It is submitted that before the eviction order was passed against the petitioners, it was imperative for the Court to give an affirmative finding to the effect that there was a failure on the part of the tenant to pay the rent and that the said failure must be to pay rent regularly which finding has not been given and for the said aspect, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kanta vs. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and Ors. reported as AIR 1980 SC 1464. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is non-speaking and cryptic. It is stated that the arguments of the parties have been recorded but no affirmative finding has been given by the Financial Commissioner and thus on the said ground the impugned order deserves to be set aside and in support of his said argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and anr. vs. Sh.Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported as 2010(9) SCC 496.