RAJA RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landowner's petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari against the orders of the Revenue authorities throwing out his application for ejectment of his tenant for non-payment of rent summarily on the ground that it has been preferred as a counter-blast to the tenant's application for purchase of land in his tenancy under the provisions of Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) The petitioner Raja Ram of village Mehraipura in Fazilka Tehsil applied for ejectment of Ram Kishan, his tenant, from an area of 8 Bighas and 4 biswas of land alleging that the tenant had not paid rent regularly since Kharif 1957 to Rabi 1960. This application was made under Section 14-A of the Act, clause (i) of which enables a landowner desiring to eject a tenant to apply in writing to the Assistant Collector, First Grade, having jurisdiction. The tenant is liable to be ejected under Section 9, if he fails under clause (i) of sub-section (1) to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. An application for ejectment made under Section 14-A is always subject to the provisions of Section 9-A which says that no tenant liable to ejectment under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 shall be dispossessed of his tenancy unless he is accommodated on a surplus area. The Assistant Collector before whom this application for ejectment was made on 21st of January, 1961, dismissed it on the short ground that he was "convinced that the application has been brought forward only as a counter-blast to the application of the tenant on Form 'Q"' which means that the tenant had made an application to purchase the land under Section 18 of the Act. Under clause (i) of sub-section ( 1) of Section 18 of the Act, "a tenant of landowner other than a small landowner, who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years, shall be entitled to purchase from the landowner the land so held by him." The order passed by the Assistant Collector is clearly erroneous and lacks jurisdiction. He had no warrant to dismiss an application summarily on the ground that it was made as a counter-blast to the tenant's application for purchase of the land. The order passed by the Assistant Collector on 30th of September, 1961, was affirmed in appeal by the Collector who was moved under Section 24 of the Act. It is significant to observe that the Collector in his order stated that "it is not advisable to decide ejectment application first before adjudicating upon the purchase application especially when the purchase application was made under the provisions of a statute should be dismissed on the ground of inadvisability to proceed with it." The Commissioner, who was moved further in appeal took a similar view in the order recorded by him on 16th October, 1962, and he stated that he has no reason to "disagree with the finding of the lower courts". It is worth observing that the application under Section 14-A(1) said to have been made, according to the Assistant Collector, by the petitioner on 21st January, 1961, was stated by the Commissioner to have been made on 7th of February, 1961. While I am on this aspect of the case, it may be mentioned that the Financial Commissioner in his revisional order said that the application for ejectment was made on 10th January, 1961. It is amazing that there should be such a variation between different authorities about the date when the application for ejectment was actually made. The Financial Commissioner, in his revisional jurisdiction, passed an order on 10th of April, 1963, dismissing the revision petition, and affirmed the orders made by the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Commissioner.

(3.) It was not denied by the Financial Commissioner that the right to proceed with under Section 14-A(1) of the Act was independent from the action contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. What weighed with the Financial Commissioner was that though no rent had been paid by the tenant from Kharif 1957 to Rabi 1960, no steps had been taken by the landowner either for the recovery of rent or for ejectment until the tenant applied for purchase of land. Now, this was never a ground for summary rejection of the landowner's application for ejectment by the Assistant Collector who dismissed it only on the ground that it was made as a counter-blast. There is no answer to the contention raised by Mr. Sachdev, the learned counsel for the petitioning landowner, that his application made under the provision of Section 14-A(i) had to be considered independently on its own merits. The best and only solution to the problem which faced the Revenue authorities was to consolidate the petition made by the landowner with the application for purchase of land made by the tenant under Section 18 of the Act. I may refer to a recent decision of Narula J. in Kamal Dev v. The State of Punjab, 1965 PunLJ 180 where it was held that if "an application by the tenant to purchase the land of his tenancy is made simultaneously with that instituted by the landlord for his ejectment, both the applications should be tried by the same Assistant Collector." The same principle should be followed when the applications are made one after the other.