AMAR NATH Vs. FINANCIAL COMM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord who had failed to eject the tenant up to the highest revenue Court, has approached this Court through the present writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) SMT . Krishni, original landowner initiated proceedings for the eviction of Surja; a tenant. On June 14, 1971, the application was dismissed on the ground that she had failed to produce evidence in spite of the grant of the various opportunities. She filed another application alleging that the tenant had failed to pay rent for the crops from Kharif 1965 to Rabi 1971 without sufficient cause. Initially, this application was dismissed for default. It was subsequently restored. On October 21, 1976, the Assistant Collector accepted the application and ordered the ejectment of the respondent tenant. In the meantime, he (the tenant) had filed an application dated September 11, 1974 under Section 14-A (iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for payment of rent. Before this application could be decided, he filed an appeal challenging the order of ejectment passed by Assistant Collector before the Collector. The case was remanded vide order dated December 21, 1976, for fresh decision in view of the pendency of the application for payment of rent. On April 15, 1977, the Assistant Collector dismissed the application dated September 11, 1974. On May 13, 1977, the Assistant Collector ordered the ejectment of the tenant. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. It appears that Smt. Krishni died. Her estate was then represented by her adopted son Amar Nath, the present petitioner. The tenant appealed to Collector. It was accepted vide order dated November 24, 1977. The case was remanded to the Collector. On January 18,1978, the tenant filed another application under Section 14-A (iii) for deposit of Rs. 859-93 paise towards rent. On December 14, 1978, the Collector dismissed the application for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that 'the appellant tenant had deposited the amount of 'batai' for Rabi 1969 to Rabi 1970 and Kharif 1970 to Rabi 1977 in the Govt. Treasury' vide receipts dated January 14,1978 and January 11,1978. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P-4. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on November 11, 1980 vide order at Annexure P-5. His revision petition also met the same fate and it was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on August 26, 1981. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-6. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The impugned orders have been challenged on various grounds which will be presently noticed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. C. B. Goel, appearing for the petitioner has contended that the tenant having failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause, was liable to be ejected and that on the basis of the evidence on record, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant has submitted with equal vehemence that the landowner had initially avoided to receive rent with the oblique objective of evicting the respondent and as such no interference was called for in the circumstances of the case.