CHANDGI RAM Vs. INDER SAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 against the orders dated 31.3.93, 18.7.94 and 17.5.95 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Hisar, Collector, Hisar and the Commissioner, Hisar Division, respectively in the eJectment case.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that the respondents Inder Sain and Tulsi Dass moved an application on Form 'L' under Section 14A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Hisar for ejectment of the petitioners Chandgi Ram etc. from 29kanals 16marlas land situated in village Kuleri, Tehsil and District Hisar on the ground of nonpayment of 1/3 Batai being ghair maurusi tenants without process of the Court. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Hisar vice his order dated 31.5.93 ordered ejectment of the petitioners Chandgi etc. subject to payment Rs. 100/- per acre by the respondentlandowners. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Collector, Hisar Division who vice his order dated 18.7.94 dismissed the appeal. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Commissioner, Hisar Division for acceptance on the grounds that the respondents are big landowners, the petitioners have not defaulted in payment of the rent. The Commissioner vice his order dated 17.5.95 dismissed the revision holding that the ejectment of the petitioners Chandgi etc. is totally justified in view of their really non-cooperative conduct of non-payment of Batai in a manner entitling them to ejectment. The petitioner Chandgi Ram has now preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has stated that the respondent-landowners recovered the rent from the petitioner for the crops from 1974 to 1988 through the Court. Present application for ejectment/recovery of rent was filed in 1989, landowner-respondents have been living in the same village. The counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has also raised the contention that the petitioner-tenant has been defaulting in the payment of the rent which the respondents had to take resort to the Court for recovering the rent; and the past default in payment of rent is relevant for ejectment of the tenant. The counsel has referred to the decided cases reported as 1965-PLJ-91(SC), 1989-RRR-95, 1994-PLJ-492 in support of his contention. Accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.