RULDU Vs. CHANDRAWATI ALIAS SHINDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two inter-connected revision petitions filed against the order dated 26.4.2005 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar regarding ejectment of teants from the land in dispute. Counsel for both the parties have filed their written arguments which are placed on record. Being of similar nature, these revision petitions are hereby decided by this single order. Copy of this order shall be placed on each file.

(2.) BRIEF fact of the case are that present respondent Smt. Chandrawati and Shindo filed two separate applications in Form L for ejectment of present petitioners from land measuring 8 kanals bearing. Khewat No. 3 Khatoni No. 49, Khasra No. 15R/4 and 6 Kanal 17 Marla bearing Khewat No. 3, Khatoni No. 40, Khasra No. 15R/5/1 situated in the village Chak Chimna Tehsil Pathankot as per Jamabandi for the year 1985-86 for non-payment of rent before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Pathankot. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence produced on the file, AC. 1st Grade passed ejectment order vide order dated 28.10.1999. Aggrieved by this order, petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector Gurdaspur who after hearing both the parties, remanded the case to AC. 1st Grade, Pathankot vide his order dated 31.12.2002 up-held the order of his predecessor dated 28.10.1999. Aggrieved by this order, petitioners filed two separate appeals before the Collector the grounds that AC. 1st Grade had not even given passing reference to the proceedings under section 14(iii) of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, that Chandrawati was owner of 1/8 share but she was claiming rent of entire land. After hearing both the parties, Collector, Gurdaspur dismissed both the appeals by two separate orders dated 11.8.2003. Aggrieved by this order, petitioners filed two separate revision petitions before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. After hearing both the parties and examining the record of the Lower Court, Commissioner, Jalandhar Division Jalandhar dismissed both the revision petitions by a single order dated 26.4.2005. Now two revision petitions before this court.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondent argued that AC. 1st Grade, Pathankot has rightly passed the order of ejectment after the relationship of landowner and tenant had clearly been established and the tenant had failed to pay the rent regularly. Further Collector dismissed the appeals of the petitioners. The revision petitions were also dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar by passing a detailed order while relying upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1980 PLJ 346. Counsel further argued that courts below concurrently recorded that relationship of Iand owner and tenant had clearly been established and it was obligatory on the part of the tenant to pay the rent regularly, but the tenant committed default in payment of rent and he was held to be a habitual defaulter. The contention of the petitioner with regard to declaration of surplus area was held to be not tenable as after the death of Dhian Singh husband of the respondent the land was inherited by his legal heirs who were lawfully entitled and the ownership of the land in dispute had never been divested. Counsel relied upon 1980 PLJ 334, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gian Chand and others v. Financial Commissioner, has held that payment of rent in pursuance to the order mad under Section 41-A(2) did not absolve of the tenant of the liability to be ejected on an application filed under Section 14(1) read with Section 9(1)(ii). If the tenant failed to pay the rent without any sufficient cause, he was liable to be ejected irrespective of whether the area was declared surplus or not. It was for the Government to determine that issue and to take appropriate steps for its allotment in accordance with law and the tenant could seek protection on that account. Counsel contested the stand of the petitioners that the landowner was owner to the extent of 1/8 share, whereas she was claimed rent of entire suit land was totally without any substance as in the written statement filed before A.C 1st Grade, the petitioner has no where pleaded such an averment. Thus, the petitioner was estopped by its own act and conduct from raising such a plea which was never pleaded before the Courts below. Counsel also cited Supreme Court 1989 (Raj Bala's case). Counsel prayed for the dismissal of the revision petitions.