JARMAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is perhaps for the sole reason that fate of litigating parties herein fluctuated in various Courts that determination of a small issue as to whether the relationship of landlord and the tenant exists between the parties, has taken a period of over two decades.

(2.) FACTS leading to filing of the two Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos. 902 and 946 of 1991 on behalf of the tenant need a necessary mention before respective stand of the litigating parties is noticed.

(3.) THE two admitted owners Vidya Sagar and Devinder Nath owning land in dispute measuring 148 Kanals in equal shares filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,200/ as arrears of rent for the crops for the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 on 19. 8. 1975. In defence, the tenant-respondent set up an agreement of sale dated 9. 2. 1958 with regard to land measuring 88 Kanals 8 Marias said to have been executed by one of the owners namely Vidya Sagar on his behalf and also on behalf of his real brother Devinder Nath, the owner of the other half. By virtue of agreement aforesaid, 7 acres of irrigated land was to be sold to him at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per acre and with regard to the remaining 4 acres of land the rate settled between the parties was Rs. 600 per acre. The plea of Jarnam Singh, the appellant in these two appeals that he was in possession of the suit land in part performance of the contract succeeded. It obviously resulted into a finding that there was no relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties. The suit for recovery of the rent and for eviction was, thus, dismissed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 9th February, 1982. Aggrieved, the owners, the respondents herein carried an appeal under section 80 of the Punjab Tenancy Act before the Collector which was dismissed on 11. 8. 1982. The landlords were unsuccessful before the Commissioner who dismissed the revision preferred on their behalf on 22. 11. 1983. The second revision before the Financial Commissioner met with the same late vide order dated 25. 2. 1987. Inasmuch as considerable time had elapsed from the date when the aforesaid suit was instituted, the landowners filed yet another suit on 2. 6. 1979 for the recovery of rent for the crops for the years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jullundur, on the basis of the revenue record that was produced before him decreed the suit vide his order dated 8. 11. 1982. The appeal preferred by the tenant failed before Collector on 24. 2. 1983. However, in revision preferred by the tenant before the Commissioner, the matter was recommended for acceptance of the revision and dismissal of the suit before the Financial Commissioner. Financial Commissioner accepted the reference. It requires to be mentioned here that the recommendation made by the Commissioner in the second suit and the second revision of the landlords with regard to first suit came to be disposed of by a common judgment. Aggrieved, the landlords preferred two Civil Writ Petitions which in turn were again decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a common judgment. Both the petitions were accepted. It is against the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in the two writ petitions referred to above, decreeing the suit of landowners-respondents that the two Letters Patent Appeals under clause III of the Letters Patent have been preferred by the tenant,