RAM KISHAN Vs. MAST RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 842, 1364 and 1365 of 1985 as similar/common questions arise therein. In all these cases the landlords are the same but there are three different sets of tenants.

(2.) On 4-8-1981, the land-owners filed three separate applications, one against each set of tenants, under S.14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 thereinafter referred to as the Act) in Form-L on the ground that the tenants have failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause which is one of the grounds of ejectment contained in S.9(1)(ii) of the Act. In the application filed in Form 'L' no details were given and it was not specified as to rent for which crop or crops was not paid or was paid after undue delay without sufficient cause, nor the details of payment were mentioned. The tenants contested the petition and denied the allegations. On the basis of evidence, the Assistant Collector found that for certain crop rent was paid late and for another crop rent had not been paid and concluded that the tenants had failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause and ordered ejectment, vide order dated 23-8-1982 (Annexure-'P.1'). The tenants' appeal filed before the Collector was dismissed vide Annexure`P.2'. On tenants' revision, the learned Commissioner recommended the matter to the Financial Commissioner for acceptance of the revision and for setting aside the orders of ejectment. Finally, the Financial Commissioner allowed the revisions by order dated 20-9-1984 (Annexure-'P.4') and set aside the eviction orders after recording findings that the tenants had deposited the rent under S.14-A(iii) because the land-owners have refused to accept the same and in view of the deposit, which was not proved to have been made late, the ejectment orders could not be substained. These are the writ petitions by the land-owners.

(3.) The writ petitions were admitted to D. B. as the correctness of a single Bench decision in Surja v. State of Haryana, 1980 Pun LJ 177, was doubted. Therefore, we first deal with this matter, which is even otherwise of importance for the decision of the main dispute between the parties. Before S.S. Kang J. in Surja's case (supra) an argument was raised on behalf of the tenant that in order to seek ejectment of the tenant under S.14-A(i) by filing an application in Form-L, it is necessary for the land-owner to give particulars for which crop or crops the rent has not been paid and for which crop or crops rent is paid after undue delay so that the tenant may know as to what crecise case he is to meet. This argument was rejected by the learned Judge by following observations contained in paras 2 and 4 of the reported judgment, which are reproduced below :-