SURJA DEVI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Surja Devi and five others petitioners in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, question the validity of the orders of the Financial Commissioner, dated 1st May, 1964 (Annexure 'D') whereby the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Fazilka, dated 19th April, 1962 (Annexure 'A') dismissing the petitioners' application for eviction of respondent Nos. 2 to 12 from the land measuring 158 Bighas 6 Biswas situate in village Khipanwali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, has been affirmed. It is also prayed that the order of the Assistant Collector, referred to above, and the various orders of the Revenue Authorities affirming the same, including the order of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure 'D'), be quashed.

(2.) The land, from which the eviction of respondent Nos. 2 to 12 has been sought, originally belonged to Smt. Dhapan, who gifted away the same to her daughter Smt. Surja Devi in the year 1954 and in 1955 Smt. Surja Devi in turn made a gift of this very property to her sons, petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. A mutation to that effect was sanctioned on 10th June, 1955. Before that, however, on 28th May, 1954 Smt. Surja Devi had leased out this property to Lakshmi Narain respondent No. 2 for a period of three years, vide lease deed (Exhibit D. 1) on payment of Rs. 5,000/- per annum. Before the period of lease could expire, petitioner Nos. 2 to 6, having become owners under the gift made by Smt. Surja Devi in their favour, mortgaged the entire land on 9th March, 1957 to Lakshmi Narain respondent No. 2 who was already in possession as lessee. This transaction is evidenced by Exhibit D. 2. The mortgage was with possession for a period of three years for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/-. After the Rabi 1960, when the stipulated period was to expire, the mortgagee had to deliver possession of the property to the mortgagors without payment of any amount. The mortgage was actually redeemed on 21st September, 1960 and a mutation in that connection was sanctioned on 22nd November, 1960, in which it was stated that the possession of the property had been delivered to the mortgagors. Before the land was redeemed it was under the cultivation of respondent Nos. 4 to 12 and even after the redemption they continued in possession as tenants. These facts are not disputed.

(3.) On 19th January, 1962 the petitioners Surja Devi and her sons to whom she had gifted away the property in the year 1955, applied for ejectment of respondent Nos. 2 to 12 on the plea inter alia that Lakshmi Narain respondent No. 2 had sublet the land to respondent Nos. 3 to 12 and they were liable to ejectment under section 9(1)(vi) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act. In resisting the application Lakshmi Narain, as well as the alleged sub-tenants, pleaded that there was no subletting. Lakshmi Narain stated that he had no longer any interest in the land as he had delivered the possession of the land in dispute back to the petitioners on redemption of the property. Respondent Nos. 3 to 11 admitted that they were in possession but they pleaded that they were in possession before the land was leased out or mortgaged to Lakshmi Narain and after the redemption they continued to be in possession of the property as tenants under the petitioners. The Assistant Collector, on consideration of the evidence adduced before him by the parties, found that no ground for eviction of the respondents had been made out and accordingly dismissed the petitioners' application. Dealing with the plea of subletting he observed as follows :-