JASVIR INDER SINGH Vs. NATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JASVIR Inder Singh son of Avtar Singh, resident of village Bighar, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hisar, the landlord filed an application for ejectment of his tenant-Nathu son of Dhaunkal son of Hunta resident of village Dhangar, Tehsil Fatehabad, in Form L under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, praying that the tenant is a habitual defaulter, that he did not pay rents regularly before 1979 without sufficient cause and rents have to be recovered from him through the Court; that the recovery of rent for crops from Rabi, 1979 to Rabi, 80 were also recovered by an order dated 7.4.82 of the appropriate authority; that the rent recovery proceedings under Section 14-A(ii) for rent Kharif, 80 and Kharif, 81 were pending in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction and that he had also not paid the rent for Rabi, 1982 without sufficient cause and thus rent Kharif, 80 to Rabi, 82 were due. The finding of the learned Commissioner is factually incorrect. Shivdhan Singh, Reader of the Tehsildar has appeared as a witness in the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and has testified that the recovery proceedings for the crops from Kharif 80 to Kharif 81 under Section 14-A(ii) were pending before the Tehsildar on the relevant date. The date on which the present proceedings were initiated i.e. on 25.11.82, the rent for Rabi 82 which had become due had not been paid. The other mistake which has been committed by the learned Commissioner is regarding the conduct of the tenant regarding the payment of rent in past. It was not enough for the Commissioner to say that no arrears were pending even if his findings that on the due date he had paid all the rents, was correct. The past conduct of the tenant was a very relevant fact which should have been probed into. In this connection, I have seen exhibit P-1 and exhibit P-2 which establish that rents for crops from Kharif 75 to Rabi 78 were paid only after Court proceedings as exhibit P-1 decided on 19.9.79 shows. The payment of rent for the crops from Rabi 79 to Rabi 82 were also made after Court proceedings vide exhibit P-2 which was decided on 7.4.82. There was yet another case pending under Section 14-A(ii) for recovery of rent for crops from Kharif 80 to Kharif 81. In the present proceedings also, it is quite clear that rent for Rabi 1982 had not been paid till 25.11.82. There is thus massive evidence that the tenant is in the habit of paying the rent only after the Court proceedings. His plea that the landlord did not reside in the village and that his Mukhtayar-e-Aam had gone abroad and therefore he did not know to whom to pay the rent cannot hold much water. In a situation like this he can always take recourse to proceedings under Section 14-A(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. In this connection, I have gone through the rulings 1965 PLJ page 91, 1975 PLJ page 53, 1980 PLJ pages 115, 123, 211 and 514, 1984 PLJ page 122, 1980 PLJ page 346 which have been cited at various stages of the case and find that the tenant is the habitual delinquent with regard to the payment of rent without sufficient cause and is liable to be ejected. I accordingly set aside the order of the learned Commissioner dated 18.2.87 and restore the order of the Collector dated 27.5.86. To be communicated. Petition accepted.