MANDIR DARBARI LAL JI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE herein is to the orders passed by respondents 1 to 4, Annexure P-2, P-4 and P-6, vide which the application for ejectment preferred by petitioner-Mandir Darbari Lal Ji through Shri Satya Dev was dismissed and the appeal and revision carried against the said order remained unsuccessful.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that the petitioner Mandir Darbari Lal Ji is a Dholidar in respect of land measuring 22 bighas 13 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 1629 to 1636 situated in the revenue estate of village Bhaini Chander Paul, Tehsil Maham, District Rohtak. Satya Dev Gupta is the Mohtmim and Muntzim of the petitioner-Mandir. The petitioner filed an application under Section 14-A (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short the Act) for eviction of respondent-tenants, Ram Sarups, Satbir and Chander Singh, who were in cultivating possession of the khasra numbers, referred to above, on payment of 1/3rd batai. It was stated in the application aforesaid that the respondent-tenants were in arrears of rent from Rabi 1981 to Kharif 1983. As per the nature of cultivation as examined from the revenue record, an amount of Rs. 43, 251. 25 ps. was assessed as value of the crops of the period in question i. e. the period for which the tenants were in arrears of rent. The petitioner was entitled to an amount of Rs. 14,410. 62 ps. as rent. The Assistant Collector, however, consigned the file to the records by mentioning in his order that he was not competent to deal with the matters beyond pecuniary limit of Rs. 2000/ -. Against the orders aforesaid dated March 13, 1985, petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector which was accepted and the case was remanded as, in view of the Collector, the Assistant Collector was not to pass decree and in case he was to come to the conclusion that the tenants had not paid the rent, only an order for their eviction from the land in dispute was to be passed. When the matter came for reconsideration before the Assistant Collector, he issued notice to the tenants in Forms M and N. Since the tenants pleaded that they were not required to pay the rent, the matter proceed further and after resultant trial the Assistant Collector held that the matter was being raked up in the Civil Court and since the decision of the Civil Court is to prevail, the conclusion of the petition should be postponed till the civil Court had actually passed some final orders. This order was passed by the Assistant Collector on March 19, 1987. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which came to be disposed of by Shri K. K. Gupta, Collector, Rohtak on July 19, 1989. After giving some details of the facts, the Collector remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade with an order that the tenants be directed to deposit an amount representing 1/3rd of the produce in the court of Assistant Collector Ii Grade and the party that was successful before the Civil Court, would be entitled to take the same. However, if the tenants were to refuse to deposit the amount, they were directed to be dispossessed from the land in dispute. This order was agitated by the respondent-tenants before the Commissioner. The matter came up for final disposal before the commissioner, on March 20, 1991. Agreeing with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, it was held that on failure of the tenant to pay rent, if he was to be dispossessed, relationship of landlord and tenant had to be established as also that Dohlidar is an agent and is not competent under law to file an application for eviction of the tenant. It was also held that the proceedings under Section 14-A (ii) of the Act were summary in nature and can not continue. In the copy of order that has been placed on records as Annexure P-4, it appears that it has been wrongly mentioned that the appeal was dismissed, as in view of the findings, reference whereof has been given above, the appeal ought to have been allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision before the Financial Commissioner which came up for decision on August 6, 1991. The decision of the Courts below that the issue needs to be settled by the Civil Court was upheld and, therefore, revision was dismissed in limine. It is against the orders, referred to above, excepting, of course, order that was passed in favour of the petitioner, that the present writ has been filed.

(3.) CIVIL suit, reference whereof has been given in the impugned orders, having attained finality, only question that needs determination in the present writ is as to whether a Dholidar is a landowner and is entitled to rent from the tenants inducted by him or that, as is the view taken by the Courts below, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between a Dholidar and his tenants? The matter is not res-integra as Division Bench of this Court in Baba Badri Dass v. Sh. Dharma and Ors. , 1981 P. L. J. 447, after considering the entire case law on the matter as also relevant provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and Punjab Tenancy Act, held that "dohli tenure is an instance of Malik Kabza and neither a perpetual tenancy nor covered by concept of tenancy. Dohlidar though not an owner of land, yet otherwise a landowner because he is in possession of land and responsible for payment of land revenue". The facts of the case aforesaid reveal that Baba Badri Dass, petitioner in the said case, was a Dholidar of agricultural land measuring 134 kanals 14 marlas. Vide registered deed, he leased out the aforesaid parcel of land to respondents 1 and 2, in the said case, for a period of ten years. The rent was required to be paid by 15th May of each year. Since rent was not paid regularly, he filed a petition for ejectment of the lessees/tenants under Section 9 of the Act on Form 'l'. The tenants resisted the claim of the petitioner, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioner was not a land-owner as defined in the Act and, therefore, petition for ejectment was not competent. Assistant Collector i Grade, Rohtak allowed the petition and ordered ejectment of the tenants. The tenants' appeal before the Collector failed. The Commissioner as well declined reference in the revision filed by them. The Financial Commissioner in a further revision filed by the tenants, dismissed the ejectment application. It is the order of the Financial Commissioner that was agitated in the Civil Writ Petition culminating into decision in Baba Badri Dass's case (supra ). Civil Writ Petition filed on behalf of Baba Badri Dass was allowed and the impugned order of the Financial Commissioner was quashed. Following the decision rendered in Baba Badri Dass's case (supra)it is held that the petitioner, even though Dohlidar, was a landowner and was entitled to recover rent from the tenants inducted and if the tenants had failed to pay the same nor had shown sufficient cause for non-payment thereof, they were liable to be evicted from the land in dispute.