ANIL KUMAR Vs. CHANDGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioners filed an application on form 'L' under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the land measuring 48 Kanals situated in village Tosham (Bhiwani) on the ground of non-payment of rent without any sufficient cause. The petitioners stated in their application that the respondent was Ghair Marusi tenant on their land on 1/3rd batai and he had not been paying batai regularly and batai for Kharif 1981 was outstanding against the tenant. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bhiwani, who heard the matter and examined the record, rejected the application vide his order dated 7.11.1983 but directed the tenant to pay the batai to the petitioners at once. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before Collector, Bhiwani, who vide his order dated 14.5.1984, accepted the appeal, set aside the Assistant Collector's order and ordered the ejectment of the respondent from the disputed land. Thereupon, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. Commissioner, Hissar Division, vide his order dated 29.7.1985, held that since the Collector had not given a definite finding to the effect, that the tenant had failed to pay the rent without any sufficient cause, the order dated 14.5.1984 of the Collector was not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal of the tenant was accepted and the case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision.

(2.) The scope for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is limited only to cases in which either jurisdiction has been exceeded or jurisdiction has not been exercised or has been exercised with illegality or material irregularity. An order of remand would not come under any of these categories since in case the Appellate Authority feels that some point needs to be examined further it is quite within its rights to refer the case back to the lower authority. This is a legitimate exercise of jurisdiction. However it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of remand passed by the Commissioner is illegal in view of the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Atma Ram v. Hazari, 1984 PunLJ 122The learned counsel has argued that in this ruling it has been held by the High Court that it is not necessary for the revenue officer to give a finding regarding sufficient cause. He has stated that the earlier rulings which required that the revenue officers must record their findings regarding the fact whether the default by the tenant was without sufficient cause are no longer applicable. However a reading of the ruling cited by the learned counsel does not support this contention. What has been laid down in this ruling is that where the respondent-tenant has not raised any plea of sufficient cause it is not necessary for the revenue officer to record a finding on this issue. In the case before the High Court on being asked the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant was not in a position to make reference to any part of the record in regard to such a plea by the respondent-tenant. It has therefore been found by the Court that the tenant had not raised any such plea and therefore no such finding could possibly be recorded by the revenue authority in the absence of any such plea by the tenant. Although the Division Bench has reversed the decision of the Single Bench reported in 1980 PLJ 514, it has done so on the specific reasoning that the tenant having not raised any plea no finding could be given on the issue. This ruling would not apply to cases where such a plea has been taken by the tenant. It would be necessary for the revenue officers to record a clear finding in such cases. The effect of this ruling is that while examining such cases the revenue officers must record either: (a) that the tenant has not raised any plea of sufficient cause, or (b) that the plea so raised by the tenant is not established. Therefore, wherever such a plea is raised the earlier rulings which lay down that the revenue officers must give their finding regarding sufficient cause still continue to be applicable.

(3.) I have gone through the order of the Collector who passed the ejectment order in the first instance and I do not find any reference to this issue in the order of the Collector. The Collector has not stated that the respondent-tenant had not raised the plea of sufficient cause. The learned counsel has not been able to show me anything in support of the fact that such plea was not taken by the respondent-tenant. Under the circumstances it was quite legitimate for the Commissioner to have remanded the case to the Collector for giving a finding on the point whether the respondent-tenant had sufficient cause for not paying the rent regularly. The only difference that has come about on account of the ruling cited by the learned counsel is that the Collector would now be free to record a finding that the tenant had not raised any such plea. Therefore, it is quite clear that the matter needs to be further examined by the Collector and the question and the question whether the ruling cited by the petitioner would be applicable in this case or not can only be decided after examining the record and going through the written statement of the respondent-tenant. It would not be appropriate to call for the record to examine the issue here. It is best left to be decided by the Collector first and the parties can then have recourse to appeal/revision if necessary. I do not see any reason for interference in this matter at this stage. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.