RAMESHWAR DUTT AND OTHERS Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT was stated at the bar that the facts relating co this case are correctly given in Dass v. Rameshwar Datt,, 1961 Lah LT 18 (Revenue Killings).

(2.) RAMESHWAR Datt and others Petitioners in this Court sought ejectment of some of their tenants for failure to pay arrears of rent due from them. Eviction applications were made to the Asstt. Collector II Grade (Tahsildar) Ambala who had jurisdiction to entertain them. On 8th May, 1959, he issued notices and fixed the cases for 6th June 1959. The tenants appeared and put in written statements. On 25th September, 1959 the tenants compromised with their landowners and undertook to pay them certain amount as arrears by 9th November 1959. It may be mentioned that on 25th September, 1959 the territorial circles of the Tehsildar and the Naib Tehsildar had been exchanged. The tenants defaulted on 25th November, 1959 and the landowners applied for their ejectment. On 25th November, 1959 the order of ejectment was passed by the Asstt. Collector II Grade (Naib Tahsildar) Arabala ; no objection having been taken by the tenants to his jurisdiction. They, however, appealed to the Collector which was rejected on 26th February, 1960 ; on appeal too no objection regarding jurisdiction was raised. On further revision to the Commissioner for the first time it was contended that the Assistant Collector was not competent to pass the order on account of the arrears claimed being in excess of his pecuniary jurisdiction. The Commissioner recommended the case observing that the order of the Asstt. Collector was a nullity. The learned Financial Commissioner, however, did not agree with the learned Commissioner that the order of the Assistant Collector was a nullity making all the jurisdiction void ab initio. The tenants having acquit seed in the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector the Financial Commissioner declined to interfere and maintained the orders passed by the Collector and the Assistant Collector.

(3.) IN execution of the warrant for delivery of possession it is claimed by the present Petitioners that the Respondent was evicted from the land in dispute and the Petitioners were put in possession of the same on 8th January, 1960. From that date the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ceased. Sometime subsequent to that date, the Respondent is stated to have trespassed on the land in dispute and again taken forcible possession thereof from the Petitioners with the result that they were obliged to file a suit for possession of the land in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ambala. It is in this litigation that a prayer for amendment of the written statement was made by the Defendant and allowed by the Court below which is a subject -matter of the present revision petitions.