RUP RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND NEMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two connected writ petitions that is, Civil Writ Nos. 556 and 557 of 1966. In both these cases Rup Ram (hereinafter referred to as the tenant), is the petitioner, and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab and Nemi Chand of Rewari, are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. An application for the ejectment of the tenant was made by respondent No. 2 under section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953) on April 11, 1957. Respondent No. 2 later on filed a suit under section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (16 of 1887), before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rewari for the recovery of Rs. 1,200/- on account of three years' rent for the period Kharif 1956 to Rabi 1959, on June 14, 1960. A decree for Rs. 956.21 P. was passed against the tenant by the Revenue Court on June 28, 1961. The Revenue Officer passed an order for his ejectment in the proceedings under section 14-A of the Security of Land Tenures Act (Annexure R-1). The tenant's appeal against the decree for rent was dismissed by the Collector, Gurgaon on October 30, 1961. His appeal against the order for ejectment was dismissed by the Collector on December 17, 1963. The tenant's revision petition was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division on February 1, 1965. A further revision to the Financial Commissioner was dismissed on November 30, 1965 (Annexure 'C'). Both these orders related to the decree for rent. The revision petition against the order for ejectment was dismissed by the Commissioner on February 1, 1965. The last order was passed by the Financial Commissioner in revision No. 32 on November 30, 1965 (Annexure 'C'). The order of the Financial Commissioner having been intimated to the tenant, he obtained a copy of the same and filed Civil Writ 556 of 1966, impugning the order for payment of rent and Civil Writ 557 of 1966, attacking the validity and correctness of the ejectment order.

(2.) The contest between the parties before the Revenue Officer and the Revenue Court was confined to two matters, namely, (i) whether the tenant was liable to pay to respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 48.75 P.A. as held out by the tenant or at the higher rate claimed by the landlord, and (ii) whether the tenant was liable to ejectment or not. By the impugned orders of the Financial Commissioner, the contention of the landlord has been upheld on both those matters.

(3.) At the conclusion of the hearing of both these petitions, it was stated before me on February 3, 1967, by Sharafat Ali, General Attorney of the landlord, that if the tenant was prepared to vacate the property in question by the 15th of June, 1967, the tenant may be permitted to pay the arrears of lease money at the rate of Rs. 48.75 P. per annum up to the 15th of June, 1967, and that the landlord would give credit for the amount already received by him or deposited by the tenant in the Government treasury during this litigation. The statement of Sharafat Ali was recorded by me on that day, wherein he added that if the tenant does not deposit the balance of the amount due to him on the above basis and does not vacate the property and deliver its possession to respondent No. 2 by the 15th of June, 1967, the order of ejectment and the decrees for rent passed by the Revenue Authorities and upheld by the Financial Commissioner shall stand intact and would be enforceable in accordance with law.