MUNSHA SINGH Vs. MANDIR THAKUR BAULIANWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case has been submitted by Sh. R.P.S. Pawar, IAS, Commissioner, Jalandhar Divison, Jalandhar, under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, read with Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, with his opinion that the present revision petition be accepted and the impugned order passed by the AC Ist, Pathankot dated 21.7.1987 and the order dated 31.5.1991 passed by the Collector, Gurdaspur be set aside, as per his reference dated 30.11.1993.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that Mandir Thakar Dwara Baulianwala at Pathankot through Sh. Bashambar Dass resident of Pathankot, as Mohtmim of the Mandir, made an application to AC Ist, Pathankot on 7.1.1985, in Form 'L' under section 14-A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for the ejectment of Munsha Singh s/o Kesar Singh from the land measuring 35K, under his tenancy, situate at village Saili, Tehsil Pathankot, on the ground that he had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause. In this application, the crops for which the rent has not been paid; has not been mentioned; only it has been recorded that copies of the decisions shall be produced. This application was replied to by the tenant, Munsha Singh, as per application dated 5.7.1985, in which the tenant had denied the allegation of non-payment of rent and had explained the position specifically, about the crops of Kharif 1984 and Rabi 1985. Before filing this application in form 'L', the Mandir Thakur Baulianwala through its Mohtmim had filed a suit against Munsha Singh for the recovery of arrears of rent, amounting to Rs. 9808/-, for the crops of Kharif 1979 to Rabi 1982, for the land under his tenancy, under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. This suit was decreed against Munsha Singh, as per the Judgment of the AC Ist, Pathankot, dated 26.10.1984. The perusal of this judgment shows that under issue No. 4, it was framed: whether, for the reasons mentioned in the suit the defendant is liable to be ejected ? OPP. and in the findings under issue No. 4, it has been recorded, ''this issue has not been pressed by the plaintiff, hence it is decided in favour of the defendant (Munsha Singh) and against the plaintiff''. The Mandir Thakur Baulianwala has also filed a suit against Munsha Singh, for the recovery of Rs. 4397/-, as share of the landlord, in respect of the crops from Rabi 1983 to Kharif 1984, for the land under the tenancy of Munsha Singh under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and this suit was also decreed as per the judgment of the AC Ist, Pathankot dated 13.11.1987. In this judgment the AC Ist, has recorded, ''at the face of the evidence and documents brought on record by the tenant/defendant, it is amply clear that the tenant/defendant has done his best in giving the plaintiff's share by giving notices/approaching the court concerned and it is the plaintiff only who could not agree to receive the same without giving a receipt for which the tenant/defendant is entitled and it is the duty of a man to give receipt for the same which he is receiving from the other. Thus, the tenant/defendant cannot be held responsible for not tendering/paying the rent in dispute without sufficient cause and the additional issue framed is hereby decided in favour of the tenant/defendant and against plaintiff/landlord''. On the application in form 'L' the AC Ist Grade, Pathankot ordered the ejectment of Munsha Singh from the said land, as per his order dated 21.7.1987, and an appeal filed by Munsha Singh before the Collector, Gurdaspur was also rejected as per Collector's order dated 31.5.1991, and still aggrieved by this, Munsha Singh's son Kartar Singh, after the death of Munsha Singh, filed a revision petition before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, as a result of which, the case has been submitted by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, as per his reference dated 30.11.1993.

(3.) FROM the overall conduct of the landlord, it appears that his intention was to seek the ejectment of the tenant, by creating evidence against him and he was not serious enough to recover the rent alone. Where the intention of the landlords is only to eject the tenants, and not to have the recovery of rent, due if any, from the tenants, the Revenue Officers must see through such intentions of the landlords and safeguard the interests of the tenants, as implied or expressed in ''Punjab Law'' as well as in the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972.