(1.) The petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Risal Singh challenging the legality of the order dated 30.6.1964 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent No. 1.
(2.) The facts given by the petitioner in the writ petition have not been admitted by the respondents. Both the parties are, however, agreed that this petition should be decided on the facts given by the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, Jhajjar, in his order dated 18.2.1963, which is annexure 'A' to the writ petition. Those facts are that the petitioner was cultivating land measuring 29 kanals and 2 marlas situate in village Khungai, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak, under Kure and others, respondents 2 to 9, as a tenant-at-will on a rent of one-third batai (share in produce). The landlords made an application under Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) to the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, Jhajjar, that the petitioner had not paid to them Rs. 600/- the share of their produce from kharif 1960 upto rabi 1962 and these arrears should be got recovered from him. On the receipt of this application, notice was issued to the petitioner in the prescribed form 'N' either to deposit the rent or value thereof, if payable in kind, or give proof of having paid it or of the fact that he is not liable to pay the whole or part of the rent, or of the fact of the landlord's refusal to receive the same or to give a receipt for it, within a period of one month of the receipt of the notice. In response to this notice, the petitioner appeared and filed a written statement to the effect that he had paid the entire amount of the one-third share of the batai to the respondents. This dispute was then tried by the Assistant Collector, Second Grade. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Assistant Collector found that Rs. 145.88 P., which were the landlord's share of batai in the kharif crop 1961, had not been paid by the petitioner. He was directed to pay this amount within 10 days, otherwise, he would be ejected from the land in dispute. This order was passed on 18.2.1963 and it is common ground that the said amount was duly deposited within time by the petitioner. This order, however, was appealed against by the landlords. The Collector, who heard the appeal, set aside the same by his order dated 31.7.1963. He came to the conclusion that the tenant had only 30 days to either pay the rent or to produce evidence of his having paid the same. If he did not pay it, but led evidence to show that he had paid the same, and later on it was found that he had not paid the rent, then he must face the consequences of his having been found to be in arrears and he must be ejected. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Ambala Division, who set aside the order of the Collector and restored that of the Assistant Collector, Second Grade. His finding was that if the tenant did not admit the claim of the landlords, the Assistant Collector had to make an enquiry into that matter. When as a result of the enquiry, he came to the conclusion that Rs. 145.88 P. were payable by the petitioner as arrears of rent, naturally he had to allow him some time for this payment and the period of ten days allowed to him for this purpose was quite reasonable. It was impossible to cover the enquiry within the period of one month as provided in the notice form 'N'. The enquiry was bound to take some time and after enquiry the officer must give some time to the defaulter to make payment. Reliance was placed on the decision of Mr. B.S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, in Kalu Ram V. Ujagar Singh and others,1960 LLT 65 for the proposition that the period of payment of arrears should run from the date of Assistant Collector's order and must not be allowed to exceed one month. The Assistant Collector was thus right in allowing 10 days for the payment. Against this decision, the landlords filed a revision before the learned Financial Commissioner, who, by the impugned order, accepted the same and restored the order of the Collector. According to him, the period fixed by the Assistant Collector in the notice form 'N' issued under Section 14-A(ii) of the Act for the payment of arrears of rent could not be extended and the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, could not allow 10 days' time. He placed reliance on a ruling of this Court given by Tek Chand J. in Dhanna V. Siri Parkash and others, 1962 64 PunLR 855, and his own earlier decision in Sodhi Lal Singh V. Sham Singh,1964 LLT 7. This has led to the filing of the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view of law taken by the learned Financial Commissioner was wrong. The case of the petitioner was that an excessive amount of rent was being claimed by the landlords and his position was that he had paid the entire amount of rent due from him. A bona fide dispute, therefore, arose between them and the same was investigated by the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, who took evidence of both the parties and then came to the conclusion that only Rs. 145.88 P. were due from him. He then directed the petitioner to deposit this amount within 10 days and this was done within this period. According to the learned counsel, the time of one month prescribed in the notice in form 'N' would commence from the date of the order of the Assistant Collector after he had made the necessary enquiry. There was thus no delay on his part and under these circumstances no order of eviction could be passed against him. He further submitted that there had not been any non-compliance with the notice in form 'N' on the part of the petitioner, inasmuch as he had led evidence to show that the landlords were not entitled to the entire amount claimed by them and he had paid what was in reality due to them.