ATMA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are tenants of respondents 3 to 5 in certain land in village Kot Kachhwa Khurd, Tehsil and District Ambala. There was some dispute between them with regard to the quantum of rent. These respondents then filed a petition under Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Ambala, for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- on account of arrears of batai from Rabi 1958 to Rabi 1960. According to the petitioners, a sum of Rs. 350/- was actually due from them. The Assistant Collector found that the petitioners were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 887.67 nP. and he made an order on 28th September, 1950, directing the petitioners to deposit this amount within one month of his order. The petitioners filed an appeal to the Collector and it is stated in the petition that a sum of Rs. 350/- was deposited on 28th October, 1960, and on the application for stay, which was heard by the Collector on 18th October, 1960, the petitioners were allowed the stay for one month upto 8th November, 1960, but it was continued by subsequent orders upto the date of final hearing. Meanwhile they deposited the balance of Rs. 537.67 nP. On 23rd December, 1960 the Collector dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. The Commissioner recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the revision application of respondents 3 to 5 which had been moved before him should be accepted and the petitioners be ordered to be ejected. The Financial Commissioner, relying on certain previous decisions in Sham Dass V. Mange,1959 LLT 49 and Kalu Ram V. Ujagar Singh,1960 LLT 65 directed the ejectment of the petitioners principally on the ground that they had failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 887.67 nP. within one month from the date of the order of the Assistant Collector. These orders have been challenged by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The sole ground that has been taken in the petition, as also before me, is that the Collector during the pendency of the appeal had granted extension of time for deposit of the amount which had been determined by the Assistant Collector as due from the petitioners to respondents 3 to 5. It is urged that the appellate Court had either inherent powers or the same powers as a Court has under Order XLI, rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the operation of the order made by the Assistant Collector. In this connection Mr. Partap Singh has referred to Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act which provides that the provision in regard to appeal, review and revision shall, so far as may be, be the same as provided in Sections 80 to 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Section 88 of the Tenancy Act says that the State Government may make rules regulating the procedure of Revenue Courts in matters under the Act for which a procedure is not prescribed thereby, and may by any such rule direct that any provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply, with or without modification, to all or any classes of cases before those Courts. It is not possible to accept the contentions of Mr. Partap Singh because this very point has come up for consideration before this Court - and it has been held by Tek Chand J. in Dhanna V. Siri Parkash, 1962 64 PunLR 855 that the period fixed by the Assistant Collector in the notice in Form N issued under Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for the payment of arrears of rent cannot be extended by the Court of Appeal. He agreed with the view expressed in the decisions of the Financial Commissioner in 1959 L.L.T. 49 and 1960 L.L.T. 65.

(3.) Mr. Partap Singh has sought to assail the correctness of the decision given by Tek Chand J. and has relied on the principle laid down in Jai Berham V. Kedar Nath Marwari, 1922 AIR(PC) 269. In that case the well known rule has been laid down that one of the first and highest duties of all Courts is to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the suitors. There is no question of the applicability of that principle to the present case. No injury had been done to the petitioners by any act of the Collector. If extension had been granted by the Collector, it was on account of a prayer or a request made to him in the matter, and if the Collector had passed an order which was not in accordance with law, it cannot be said that any injury was being caused to the petitioners on account of an order made by him. Mr. Partap Singh has further contended that the whole object of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is to give protection to the tenants, and, therefore, the relevant provisions of that statute should be liberally construed in favour of the tenants. It may be that the provisions should be liberally construed but since there is no provision at all either in the aforesaid Act or in the Punjab Tenancy Act under which the Court of Appeal or Revision has been given the power to extend the time for the payment of arrears, no question of the construction of the provisions of the Act arises at all. With respect, I adopt the reasoning of Tek Chand J. and hold that the orders made by the revenue authorities do not contain any such error which would justify interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed but I make no order as to costs.