SUJAN SINGH Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , This is a reference by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division vide his oder dated 31.3.1993 against the order dated 20.12.1991 passed by the Collector Rewari who upheld the order dated 18.4.91 passed by the AC I grade Rewari in an ejectment case.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that Sujan Singh and Uttam Singh present petitioners filed a revenue suit before the AC I Rewari under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for ejectment of Ram Chander and Smt. Saraswati present respondents from the land measuring 20 K 9 M comprising in Khewat No. 65 Khata No. 92 Mustatil No. 2 Killa No. 1/2 (5-17), 10(4-12) and Khewat No. 66 Khatauni No. 22 Killa No. 3/2(2-00), 4(8-00); and also 32 Kanals land comprising in Khewat No. 31 Khatauni No. 39 Mustatil No. 22 Killa No. 5(8-0), 6(8-0), 7(8-0) and Khawat No. 70 Khatauni No. 92 Mustatil No. 22 Killa No. 8(8-0) situated in village Jatti, Tehsil Rewari, on the ground of non-payment of 1/3 Batai amounting to Rs. 4000/- as ghair Maurusi tenants for Kharif 1980 and Rabi 1983 without sufficient cause and the petitioners being small land haders having no other agricultural land required the land for self cultivation. The AC I grade Rewari heard the parties and perusing the file finding that the ejectment Suit cannot proceed further till the determination of surplus area case in respect of the disputed land; and that for recovery of the rent the petitioners would file a case the competent court, vide his order dated 18.4.91 dismissed the suit. The petitioners Sujan Singh and Uttam Singh then filed an appeal before the Collector Rewari who vide order dated 20.12.91 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner who then filed a revision before the Commissioner Gurgaon Division. The Commissioner then made the reference to this Court with the recommendation that the orders of AC I and that of Collector may be set aside and suit of the petitioners for ejectment of the respondents and for recovery of rent be decided in their favour.

(3.) SO far as non-payment of rent is concerned, the petitioner's counsel has submitted that rent of Kharif 1980 to Rabi 1983 was admittedly due on the date of the suit. That the defence put up by the respondents was that the rent had not been paid because the petitioners demanded excess rent and that application under section 14 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 had been filed for depositing the rent. This defence has been found to be frivolous by the Commissioner. Even otherwise also the deposit of rent subsequently under section 14(1)(iii) of the Act, 1953 would not absolve the tenant of the liability to ejectment as the relevant rate is the date on which eviction proceedings are initiated. That the petitioners have been recovering the rent through court for Rabi 1976 to Rabi 1979 and then of Kharif 1979 and Rabi 1980. In view of his foregone arguments the petitioners' counsel requested that the impugned orders of the Collector Rewari that of the AC I Rewari may be set aside and suit of the petitioners for the ejectment of the respondents from the land under dispute except 10 Kanals of the area comprised in Rect. No. 22 Killa No. 3 Min. East (2-0) and 4(8-0) and for recovery of rent amounting Rs. 400/- be decreed.