BALWANT SINGH DHARAM SINGH Vs. SODHI LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Balwant Singh under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of Harbans Singh, J. , dismissing his petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. Sodhi Lal Singh respondent applied to the Assistant collector, Second Grade. Moga, under Section 14-A (ii) of the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1953, for the recovery of Rs. 900 from Balwant Singh appellant as the tenant of certain land for the harvests of kharif 1959 and rabi 1960 and a notice of demand in the prescribed form 'n' was issued to Balwant Singh and served on him on the 6th of November 1960. He disputed the correctness of the amount demanded and claimed that only a sum of Rs. 605 was due, the annual rent of the land, which was 88 kanals or 11 acres in extent, being Rs. 55 per acre. By his order, dated the 30th of December 1960 the Assistant Collector held that the rent due was in fact Rs. 605 and in his order he recorded the fact that the amount was tendered to the landlord by the tenant. He directed the landlord to accept the amount tendered on issuing a receipt or alternatively the tenant was directed to deposit the amount in Court. It appears that the landlord did not accept the tender made on the 30th of December 1960 and the amount was deposited in the treasury at Moga on the 2nd of January 1961 the two intervening days--the 31st of December 1960 and the 1st of January 1961 -- being holidays.

(3.) THE landlord appealed to the Collector, who by his order dated the 14th of April 1961 upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. The landlord then went in revision to the Commissioner, who by his order dated the 4th of July 1962 took the view that the tenant was liable to ejectment because he had not paid the amount admittedly due from him within thirty days of the receipt by him of the notice in form 'n' (the 6th of November 1960) and he accordingly recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the orders of the Collector and the Assistant collector should be set aside. His recommendation was accepted by the learned financial Commissioner by his order dated the 11th of October 1962.