MURARI LAL Vs. JITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether an order passed by the Assistant Collector under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties providing inter alia that the tenants would continue to remain as such till the payment of the last penny of the purchase price to the landlords, would stand in the way of the tenants in question acquiring ownership rights of the land in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the Act after payment of part of the purchase price mentioned in the said order.

(2.) To appreciate the question abovesaid a few salient facts, which are not in dispute, only deserve mention. The petitioners, Murari Lal and his son Dharam Vir, were the owners of the land, the purchase whereof had been sought by the respondent-tenants under Section 18 of the Act. The said land was comprised in the surplus area of the landowners and the petitioners admittedly fulfilled the requisite qualifications entitling them to move the Assistant Collector for its purchase under Section 18 of the Act. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, the parties entered into a compromise which, inter alia fixed the price of the involved land at Rs. 67,832/- which was made payable in four instalments i.e. (i) Rs. 18,000/- within 15 days; (ii) Rs. 16.611/- before 16.1.1965: (iii) Rs. 16,611/- before 16.1.1966; and (iv) Rs. 16,6101/- before 15.1.1967. It also envisaged that the tenant-respondents were to be considered owners of the land only after the payment of the whole amount by the due date and in case the tenant-respondents committed default of payment of any instalment, the petitioner-landowners were entitled to claim one-third Batai, and that lastly in case the tenant-respondents paid the whole amount before 15.1.1967, even then they were to become owners on that date and not before. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide his order dated 16.7.1964 allowed the purchase application of the tenant-respondents in terms of the compromise.

(3.) The tenant-respondents effected payment of Rs. 18,000/- as the first instalment on 1.8.1964. On the same date, they also made payment of Rs. 8,000/- in order to clear the up-to-date rent uptill Rabi 1964 (period prior to the purchase application). The tenant-respondents, however, did not effect payment of the second instalment of Rs. 16,611/- before 16.1.1965; but they on 10.2.1965 deposited a sum of Rs. 12,000/- with the petitioners, vide receipt Exhibit R/A. The petitioner-owners sought ejectment of six tenant-respondents through six separate applications on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period after the deposit of the first instalment on 1.8.1964, and also for the reason of subletting.