GURDIAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-1), PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the tenants in order to challenge the order of eviction passed against them on account of non-payment of rent.

(2.) In short, respondents no.5 and 6/landlords filed an application on Form-L in terms of Rule 22 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") read with Sec. 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for ejectment of the petitioners in terms of Sec. 9(1)(ii) of the Act from the land measuring 53 Kanal 01 Marlas, situated in village Tibbar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, on account of non-payment of rent from April 2008 to March 2009.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that respondents no.5 and 6/landlords were deliberately not receiving the rent in order to make out a ground for the purpose of seeking their eviction but they had filed an application on 19.08.2009 for depositing the rent in the Court from the period April 2008 to March 2009. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade observed that respondents no.5 and 6/landlords had filed the application on Form-L on 18.06.2009 and, thus, it was found that there was no sufficient reason assigned by the petitioners for not depositing the rent in time, otherwise the application to deposit the rent should have been filed in the Court before 15.06.2009. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 04.01.2012, the petitioners filed appeal before the Collector, Gurdaspur. It was argued in the appeal that the application to deposit the rent for the year 2008-09 was got delayed due to parliament elections. The Collector had found that the petitioners had given the application to deposit the rent of the year 2007-08 on 01.08.2008, which was decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gurdaspur on 09.07.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 19.08.2009 for depositing the rent of the year 2008-09, whereas the said application should have been filed before 15.06.2009. The Collector has found that the petitioners are the defaulters in depositing the rent and, thus, upheld the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade by dismissing the appeal vide his order dated 12.06.2012. The petitioners then challenged that order of the Collector and also the Assistant Collector 1st Grade by way of revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The said revision petition was accepted by the Divisional Commissioner on the ground that though the Supreme Court has held that one single default is enough for ejectment of the tenant but still in view of the another judgment of the Supreme Court that the fact that tenant has committed one default in 50 years, therefore, they should not be evicted and relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Neki Vs. Satnarain, 1997(1) PLJ Page 102. Now it was the turn of respondents no.5 and 6/landlords to go in revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner agreed with them and set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner, holding that there is no sufficient reason assigned by the petitioners in not paying the rent from April 2008 to March 2009 and also for not filing the application in time in the Court for the purpose of depositing the rent in case the landlord was not accepting the same.