PHULA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.01.2013, whereby tenants' writ petition was allowed and the order of eviction for the reason of non-payment of rent for the period from Kharif 1977 to Rabi 1981 was set aside. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Bench shows that the land in question was owned by co-sharers including Santa Singh and Harbans Singh. The assertion of the present appellants is that the land was partitioned and that the land in question fell to his share. Santa Singh son of Amar Singh had earlier filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4050/- under Section 77(N) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 claiming rent (chakota) to the tune of Rs. 1350/- per year for the years 1978-79, 1979-80 & 1980-81 in respect of land measuring 35 kanals 11 marlas. In that suit, one of the issue framed was, whether Santa Singh or Harbans Singh, were the owners of land in suit. After returning a finding that a question of title arises, the suit of the plaintiff-Santa Singh was dismissed on 22.02.1985.

(2.) On the same day, an ejectment petition filed by the land-owners including Harbans Singh was allowed for non-payment of rent without sufficient cause for the crops Kharif 1977 to Rabi 1981 i.e. the period for which rent was claimed in a petition filed by Santa Singh. In the said case, the stand of the tenants was that they had no knowledge of the partition proceedings and no notice was given to them, therefore, they are at no fault. It was also pleaded that they have been paying share of produce to the attorney of one of the co-sharers namely Harbans Kaur, attorney of Santa Singh. Receipt dated 24.05.1981 (Ex.DW-1/1) was produced on record to prove the payment of Rs. 1350/- to Harbans Kaur, as the lease amount. Considering the said plea, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed an order of eviction for the reason that the tenants have failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. Such order was affirmed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, but the same has been set aside by the learned Single Bench vide order impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) A perusal of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 shows that a tenant can be evicted for non-payment of rent, if the non-payment of rent is without sufficient cause. A reading of the orders Annexures P-1 and P-8 reveals that at the same time two different set of co-sharers were claiming rent from the tenant. The tenant had produced the receipt dated 24.05.1981 regarding payment of rent to one of the co-sharers namely Harbans Kaur as attorney of Santa Singh i.e. after the expiry of the years in question. Such payment of rent to one of the co-sharers is sufficient discharge of payment of rent. It is an inter se dispute between the co-sharers, the consequences of which cannot fall upon the tenant.