BHAJAN LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords, Ram Jas and others, who are respondents 2 to 8, moved an application for ejectment of Bhajan Lal son of Lal Chand (the ninth respondent) under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be called the Act). An order of ejectment was passed by the Assistant Collector on 20th of January, 1961. The petitioner, who is Bhajan Lal son of Moman Chand, thereafter moved the Assistant Collector that he, being a tenant of the 9th respondent, who was described as a mortgagee with possession, could not be ejected in pursuance of the order of ejectment passed in favour of respondents 2 to 8. Finding that the petitioner was not a party in the ejectment proceedings which had been filed by the landlords (respondents 2 to 8) the Assistant Collector held that warrants of dispossession could not be issued against him. From this order of the Assistant Collector passed on 7th of September. 1961 (Annexure 'A'), the landlords preferred an appeal. The Collector allowed the appeal on 6th of December. 1961. This was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur, on 14th of November, 1962, by his order, a copy of which is Annexure 'D'. The Financial Commissioner also upheld the decision in favour of respondents 2 to 8 in the order which was passed by him on 12th February, 1963.

(2.) Aggrieved by the orders of the Collector, the Additional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The basis of the petitioner's claim is that he had acquired the tenancy rights from a person who was a mortgagee with possession. It is submitted by Mr. Abnasha Singh that a mortgagee with possession has the same status as the landlord. Whatever merit there may be in this argument, it is to be observed that the ejectment proceedings culminating in the order of the Assistant Collector passed on 20th of January, 1961 were on the basis that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between respondents 2 to 8 on the one hand and the 9th respondent on the other. There was never a word said about the 9th respondent being a mortgagee in possession. Ejectment proceedings under Sections 9 and 14-A(i) are against a tenant and not a mortgagee with possession. It does not seem to have been denied, that the petitioner came into possession of the land after the order of ejectment had been passed by the Assistant Collector on 20th January, 1961. It is further to be noted that the ejectment against a tenant, both under Section 9 and Section 14-A of the Act, can be at the instance of a small landowner only. As observed by the learned Commissioner, the petitioner derived his title as a sub-tenant of Bhajan Lal son of Lal Chand who as a tenant was ejected at the instance of the landlords. If the order of ejectment was valid against the tenant, it is equally binding against the petitioner who can at best be treated a sub-tenant. There is no force in this petition which fails and is dismissed with costs.