GITA DEVI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a widow and claims to be a small landowner, filed an application for ejectment of her tenant Ji Sukh respondent No. 3, on the ground that he has failed to pay rent for a period of three years in respect of the land under his tenancy. The annal rent admittedly was Rs. 30/-. THe second ground taken by the was that she is a small landowner. She thus, sought ejectment on the above grounds under section 7(1)(b) and section 7-A (1)(b) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). It is not necessary to refer to the previous history of litigation. All that need be stated here is that the Assistant Collector vide an order dated 23.4.1970 accepted her application and directed ejectment of respondent No. 3 on both the grounds. In view of the proviso to section 7(1)(b) ibid, it was provided in the order that in case respondent No. 3 pays the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 90/- within six months from the date of decree of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector, he shall not be ejected on the ground of nonpayment of rent. Since the proviso to section 7-A(1)(b) provides that no tenant shall be ejected under the said provision, if he is a tenant of small land holding until he is allotted by the State Government alternative land of equivalent value in standard acres, the decree of ejectment further laid down that respondent No. 3 shall not be ejected on the second ground established by the petitioner until he was allotted alternative land under the above provision. It was, however, made clear that in case respondent No. 3 failed to deposit the arrears of rent within six months from the date of the decree, he shall be liable to ejectment on the first ground itself and shall not be entitled to the protection of proviso to section 7-A(1)(b) of the Act. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal from the aforesaid decree of ejectment before the Collector and also made an application for stay of his ejectment and an ad interim stay was granted by the Collector while entertaining the appeal. The appeal was, ultimately dismissed on 22.5.1971. Respondent No. 3 did not deposit the amount of Rs. 90/- within a period of six months from 23.4.1970 that is the date of the decree of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector but during the pendency of the appeal before the Collector, he deposited the said amount on 5.1.1971.

(2.) Respondent No. 3 then filed a revision petition before Commissioner Ambala Division who vide order dated 9.9.1971 (Annexure P.4) made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner respondent No. 1, that the revision petition be accepted order of ejectment passed against respondent No. 3 should be set aside and the case be remanded to the Assistant Collector for decision in accordance with law. The recommendation so made by the Commissioner was accepted by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 27.10.1978 (Annexure P. 5). The order of ejectment against respondent No. 3, passed by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Collector was set aside and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector for framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and deciding the ejectment application afresh. The legality and validity of the recommendation of the Commissioner and the order of the Financial Commissioner (Annexures P.4 and P.5) has been challenged by the petitioner through the present writ petition and a prayer is made for quashing the same by a writ of certiorari.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 was required to deposit the amount of Rs. 90/- that is the arrears of rent for three years as determined by the Assistant Collector within six months from the decree of the Assistant Collector which was passed on 13.4.1970. As he did not make this deposit within the time stipulated in the proviso to section 7(1)(b) of the Act, the ejectment order against him on the ground of non-payment of rent became final. The Commissioner, therefore, could not entertain a revision petition filed by respondent No. 3 nor could respondent No. 1 accept the same. It is contended that the deposit of rent of Rs. 90/- made by respondent No. 3 on 5.1.1971 beyond the specified period of six months mentioned above is of no help to him. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 wrongly held that the period of six months so specified could be extended or enlarged by him. To deal with this submission, it is necessary to reproduce the provision of section 7(1)(b) and proviso thereto which is to the following effect:-