BACHAN SINGH Vs. SUDERSHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EJECTMENT of the petitioner was ordered by the Assistant Collector, Grade-1, Batala on 9.4.2002 on account of non-payment of rent. The ejectment was upheld by the Collector, Gurdaspur on 5.6.2003 and by the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar on 5.8.2003. An earlier ejectment application filed by the landlord against the present petitioner was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 22.11.1988 on the ground that the landlord was denying the tenancy of the petitioner and this provided a reasonable ground for non-payment of rent as it showed that the landlord was not accepting the rent. After dismissal of this ejectment application, the landlord tried to make up the deficiency by specifically asking the present petitioner (tenant) to pay rent and thus he recognized him as a tenant and asked for rent before moving the present (fresh) application for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(2.) IT is pertinent to mention that to avoid forcible dispossession the petitioners (tenants) filed suit on 15.11.1984 for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (landlords from interfering in their possession which was decreed on 20.9.1986 by the civil Court in their favour. The relation of petitioners and respondents was recognized as that of tenants and landlord in this decree.

(3.) THE case of the tenant is that after the above notice, the landlord came to the village in December, 1988 and a compromise was struck as per which the landlord agreed to accept grain in lieu of the rent for the period from Rabi 1982 to Rabi 1988. This was agreed upon as full and final payment of all the due. Payment of the old dues was not insisted with this deal because the old dues were not legally recoverable. The landlord denies this compromise and argues that it is very hard to believe that after the background of earlier litigation, the tenant would have paid the grain in lieu of rent without taking a receipt. Witnesses of the village came forward to prove the compromise. There has been no effort on the landlord's part to rebut their evidence. The question is whether the argument of the landlord can be accepted by disbelieving the evidence of witnesses who came forward to prove the compromise and the payment. I am of the view that the petitioner after having faced the threat of ejectment at the time of earlier ejectment application, would have certainly liked to compromise and not risk his tenancy due to default of payment. The onus is on the landlord to disprove the said compromise payment. He who seeks ejectment is obliged to prove the non- payment.