CHUNI Vs. SATWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed in a case of recovery of batai against the orders of Commissioner, Hissar Division dated 27.4.95, Collector, Sirsa dated 31.8.94 and the AC I dated 23.12.93. In revision the Commissioner even went beyond the period for which the decree in this case was passed by AC I i.e. from Kharif 86 to Rabi 89, and said that he should pay batai for all successive crops also otherwise he should be ejected from the land. No prayer for ejectment is involved in this case.

(2.) THE land in question is owned by 5 ladies from a certain family; two of them being represented through a power of attorney. The batai case is said to have been filed and signed by all the 5 landlords before AC I, however, in evidence only Shri Avtar Singh who claims to have a power of attorney on behalf of two of the ladies appeared in evidence. Besides the statement of Avtar Singh and the statement of the tehsil Kanungo there was no other evidence produced by the petitioner. It may also be mentioned that this is the first time that a dispute about payment of batai has taken place between the parties even though the tenants have been cultivating this land for a very long time.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the payment of batai to one landlord is to be considered to be payment to all the shareholders as held in 1986 PLJ 297. Section 15 of the Punjab Tenancy Act also says that the tenant shall not be bound to pay part of the rent of the tenancy to one landlord and part to another. He further submitted that any defect in the framing of issues in the case has not caused any material prejudice to any party.