SMT. JITO Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed involving the certiorarial jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Financial Commissioner dated Sept. 7, 1984 (Annexure P-5)

(2.) The petitioner is the daughter of Smt. Palo. In view of lands lost by her in Pakistan, Palo, an evacuee, had been allotted land of 84 kanals 8 marlas in the revenue estate of village Chak Bhangewala. After the death of Palo, the petitioner being her only daughter succeeded to her property. She filed an application under Sec. 9 read with Sec. 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for eviction of the respondents Udham Singh and Arjan singh. According to her, the respondents Udham Singh and Arjan Singh are her tenants and they agreed to pay the rent at ⅓rd of the produce and as they failed to pay the rent, they made themselves liable to be evicted under Sec. 9(1)(ii) read with Sec. 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The said application was allowed by the Assistant Collector First Grade vide his order dated Oct. 7, 1981 (Annexure P-2) who ordered ejectment of the respondents from the land. The respondents Udham Singh and Arjan Singh preferred an appeal to the Collector, who dismissed the appeal by his order dated Feb. 12, 1982. The revision filed by them before the Additional Commissioner was also unsuccessful. Thereafter the respondents filed a further revision before the Financial Commissioner under Sec. 24 of the Act, who allowed the Revision Petition vide impugned order dated Sept. 7, 1984, and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, to decide the question as to whether the land revenue has been paid by the respondents Udham Singh and Arjan Singh or not. Challenging the said order of the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. In the written statement filed by the respondents before the Assistant Collector, the respondents took the plea that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and that they being the near relations of the petitioner have been giving some gifts to her in lieu of share of produce from time to time.

(3.) The evidence on record clearly shows that the respondents are the tenants of the land. The respondents are not claiming the land in their own right. Therefore, the denial of relationship of landlord and tenant is without any basis. Further in the earlier proceedings taken by the petitioner for declaration by filing a suit in the Civil Court, the Civil Court has concluded that the respondents are the tenants of the petitioner. Further in the order of the Financial Commissioner dated Feb. 24, 1977, in a proceeding taken by the petitioner for recovery of rent, it has been clearly held that the respondents are tenants of the petitioner and, therefore, there cannot be any doubt that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.