RAM NARAIN Vs. BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 against the orders dated 24.8.1982 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division in appeal in a case relating to the ejectment of a defaulting tenant from the land. In this case Sham Dass, landlord had filed an application under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1953, before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Muktsar, seeking ejectment of Ram Narain, tenant from the land in question because of his failure to pay the rent due to him without sufficient cause. The Assistant Collector ist Grade rejected that application vide his orders dated 19.8.1977. The landlord filed an appeal against these orders before the collector, who vide his order dated 8.10.1980 accepted the appeal, set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and ordered ejectment of Ram Narain, tenant from the land in question. Ram Narain, tenant, thereafter filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, who vide his impugned orders dated 24.8.1982 dismissed the appeal on technical grounds that legal representatives of the said landlord had not been initially impleaded in the appeal even though the said Sham Dass had died before the filing of the said appeal and that the request dated 28.10.1981 filed by the appellant-tenant for the correction of the appeal memorandum by mentioning the names of the heirs of the said Sham Dass was time barred. These orders of the Commissioner have been challenged through the present revision petition filed before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab.

(2.) I have carefully gone through the averments made in the revision petition with reference to the relevant records. I have also heard and duly considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties.

(3.) The main point that has been urged for consideration, as the preliminary point in this case, is as to whether the learned Commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without considering it on merits, because of the failure on the part of the appellant-tenant to show the correct names of the respondents in the appeal memorandum. In this behalf the admitted facts are that the said appeal had been filed by Ram narain, appellant-tenant, the present petitioner on 11.10.1980 in which the respondent was shown as Sham Dass, landlord. Proceedings were taken on that application before the learned Commissioner in which the respondents viz the sons and legal heirs of the deceased Sham Dass landlord were duly represented by a counsel for a period of about one years. It was, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, only on 28.10.1981 (while preparing his case for arguments) that the counsel for Ram Narain appellant-discovered that through an error the names of Nanwari lal etc., the sons of deceased landlord Sham Dass, had not been shown as the respondents even though the said Sham Dass had since died. The learned counsel brought this fact to the notice of the learned Commissioner vide an application dated 28.10.1981 in which he sought to correct the mistake. The learned Commissioner, however, vide his impugned orders held that the said application had been filed very late and it was "hopelessly barred by time." For these reasons, the learned Commissioner rejected the appeal without discussing it on merits. The learned counsel for the respondents in this case contended that any proceedings filed against a deceased person are nullity and no substitution of legal representatives can be allowed by the appellate authority in such cases. He cited an authority reported as 1961 AIR(Punjab) 57 in support of his contention. This was controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner who pointed to the contents of the aforementioned ruling in detail and contended that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the case on which the aforesaid ruling was given. In that case the filing of the appeal was a nullity because it had been filed on the deceased appellant. In this case the appellant is very much alive and it is only the respondent who is dead and whose L. Rs. were sought to be impleaded. In the body of the aforesaid judgment it is also mentioned that the L.Rs. of one of the deceased respondents (figuring in that case) can be allowed to be impleaded under the general powers of the Court for ensuring justice. The learned counsel pointed out that this proposition of law, as stated by him, had been accepted and adopted by the various Courts in their judgments ADUSUMILLI GOPALAKRISHNAYYA V/S ADIVI LAKSHMANA RAO, 1925 AIR(Mad) 1210Full Bench; 1937 AIR(Bom) 401 and 1923 AIR(Lahore) 652 The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that in the interests of justice and equity it is required that this case is remanded to the Commissioner with the directions that be should hear the aforesaid appeal on merits.