MAHLA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject -matter of challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, directing the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade to adjudicate upon the dispute raised by the landlord for the recovery of rent claimed by him.

(2.) THE second Respondent Kashmiri Lal applied under the summary procedure of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for recovery of arrears of rent from his tenant Mahla Singh, who is the Petitioner in this case. It was stated in the application that though the arrears of three previous harvests amounted to Rs. 1,339.41 nP., the claim was confined to Rs. 1,000. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Fazilka, rejected the application on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, his pecuniary jurisdiction being limited to Rs. 1,000 while the actual sum to which the landlord was entitled was Rs. 1,339.41 nP. The Collector concurred in this view and dismissed the appeal of the landlord. The Commissioner, however, being of the opinion that the amount actually claimed by the landlord determined the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector, recommended the case to the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade and the Collector. The Financial Commissioner in his order of 7th of November, 1963, has accepted the reference made to him by the Commissioner on 25th March, 1963, and has remanded the case to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade for disposal on merits. The tenant -Petitioner seeks to quash this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 14 -A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 provides a summary procedure for a landlord to eject his tenant and to recover arrears of rent. Under clause (ii) of this section - -

(3.) THE tenant's case throughout has been that the landlord had applied for recovery of a lesser amount than the one to which he was entitled with the object of vesting the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade with a summary jurisdiction in order to harass him. It is not in dispute that the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade under the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 is invested with powers to determine disputes relating to recovery provided "the rent or sum claimed does not exceed Rs. 1,000". Clause 11 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953, provides that in all matters of procedure not provided for in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act or its Rules the procedure prescribed for Revenue Officers by the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act shall be applicable. It is clear therefore that the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade depends on the amount of arrears claimed and not the amount which is actually due to the landlord. It may be reiterated that Clause (ii) of Section 14 -A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act makes no mention of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. All that is said is that the application is to be presented before "the Assistant Collector Second Grade having jurisdiction". Even if the jurisdiction is understood to be confined to the pecuniary limit, the officer concerned is empowered to determine the question of recovery wherever the amount claimed is less than Rs. 1,000. It may be observed in parenthesis that even under the general law in regard to such matters embodied in Section 7(i) of the Court -fees Act, 1870 "the amount of fee payable * * * shall be computed * * * in suits for money * * * according to the amount claimed". Although the sum due was Rs. 1,339.41 nP., the landlord could claim the lesser amount in the application made under Section 14 -A (ii) of the Act and the amount claimed would really be the decisive factor in determining the question of jurisdiction.