PUNJAB WAKF BOARD, AMBALA CANTT Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case has been reported by Mrs. Harsimrat Gill, IAS, Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, read with Section 24 of the Punjab Security of the Land Tenures Act, 1953, with her opinion that the order dated 31.3.1986, passed by the Collector, Amritsar, as well as the order dated 28.3.1985 passed by the AC Ist, Tarn Taran be set aside, by accepting the present revision petition and by ordering the ejectment of the respondent, Mukhtiar Singh etc. from the land in dispute, on the ground of non-payment of the rent, without sufficient cause, as per her reference dated 25th March, 1991. The operative part of the reference reads as follows:-

(2.) IN brief, the facts of this case are, that Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt. through the Wakf Officer, Punjab Wakf Board, Amritsar, applied to the AC Ist, Tarn Taran on 31.7.84, in form ''L'', under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, for the ejectment of the respondents - Mukhtiar Singh etc. the tenants, from out of the land measuring 10K-8M, situate at village Jaura, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, on account of non-payment of rent regularly, without sufficient cause. The AC Ist, Tarn Taran, as per his order dated 28.3.1985, rejected this application with the observation, ''I order the respondents to deposit all the arrears of rent as per 'Qabuliyatnama' of the department by dismissing this application in form 'L'. I am fully convinced that Department intentionally failed to recover the rent from the respondent/tenants and I do not find any grounds for intentional default by the tenants''. It has also been observed, by the AC Ist that,

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard, as none came present on behalf of the respondents. As this is a reference case, it has been thought appropriate to decide this case on merit, on the basis of the facts available on the record. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present petition has merit and the same deserves to be accepted. The perusal of the order passed by the AC Ist indicates that this is self-contradictory, besides being per se, non-speaking and sketchy. The tenants had asserted, inter alia, that they had stopped the payment of rent to the Punjab Wakf Board, as its officials were demanding more money, than the amount mentioned in the Qabuliatnama, and in his order he had come to the conclusion, that the tenants had failed to prove that excess money was ever demanded by the officials of the Punjab Wakf Board. Despite these facts, the AC Ist in his order has recorded that the non-payment of rent by the tenants was