SUNDER LAL (DIED) Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ishar Kaur respondent owns land which is in occupation of Sunder Singh (now deceased) and his brother Gurdit Singh petitioners as tenants. The respondents filed two applications on form N under section 14 A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act (hereafter the Act) against Sunder Singh and Gurdit Singh. Notice on form N was issued to Sunder Singh on December 24, 1975 and Gurdit Singh on January 9, 1976. The amount of rent claimed from Sunder Singh was Rs. 642.81 and from Gurdit Singh Rs. 151.58. Sunder Singh appeared before the Assistant Collector on January 23, 1976 and Gurdit Singh on February 9, 1976. They did not deposit the rent claimed from them within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. They, however, filed written statements raising pleas that the amount of Batai claimed is excessive and the Goshward has not been correctly prepared. The Assistant Collector vide order dated May 7, 1976, held that Sunder Singh was liable to pay Rs. 642.81 to Ishar Kaur respondent. Gurdit Singh was also held liable to pay Rs. 151.58 to Ishar Kaur respondent by a separate order of April 28, 1976. Both the tenants were allowed one month's time to pay the amount of Batai to the landlady. Ishar Kaur respondent assailed the orders of the Assistant Collector in appeal alleging that the tenants should have been ordered to be ejected on account of their failure to pay the Batai within one month of the receipt of notices on form N. The Collector, Ambala, vide order dated December 15, 1976, accepted the appeals of the landlady and ordered the ejectment of the tenants. The petitioners assailed the order of the Collector in appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated June 26, 1977. The petitioners then filed revision before the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed on August 7, 1978. The petitioners have assailed the adverse orders passed against them in the present writ.

(2.) The relevant part of section 14-A of the Act reads:

(3.) The petitioners after receipt of notice on form N appeared before the Assistant Collector on January 23, 1976 and February 9, 1976, respectively. The amount of rent claimed by the landlady from them was not paid by the petitioners within the stipulated period of 30 days. The Assistant Collector vide orders dated My 7, 1976 and April 28, 1976 respectively allowed the petitioners to pay the amount of rent claimed by the landlady within one month. The orders of the Assistant Collector allowing the petitioners to deposit the amount of rent within one month were illegal and bad and were rightly set aside in appeal. It has been held in Gurmej Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, 1981 RLR 45, that under section 14 A (ii), the Assistant Collector has been given only the power to make enquiry into the objections which may be raised by the tenant with regard to the non- liability to pay the arrears of rent whether wholly or partly but he has no jurisdiction to grant any further time if the tenants' contention is not upheld. The ratio of this authority is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. It was incumbent for the Assistant Collector to have ordered the ejectment of the petitioners after recording a finding that they were liable to pay the amount of rent claimed by the landlady when the same had not been paid within 30 days of the receipt of the notice on form N.