THANA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners and respondent 5 are the legal representatives of Budh Singh who was tenant of Smt. Madalsa, respondent 4; Budh Singh had been cultivating approximately 13 acres of land under respondent 4 and her predecessor-in-interest for about eighteen years. He did not pay rent for Rabi 1964 and respondent 4 brought an application on 11th September, 1964, under Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), for the recovery of the rent failing which for the ejectment of the tenant. The notice in Form "N" was served on Budh Singh tenant but he did not deposit the rent due from him within one month allowed to him. He denied his liability to pay the rent. During the pendency of the application he died and the Assistant Collector II Grade, Moga, rejected the landlord's application on 11th March, 1965, on the ground that the rent was to be paid by Budh Singh who had died and, therefore, the application was not maintainable.

(2.) Respondent 4 filed an appeal against that order which was accepted by the Collector, Ferozepur, and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector II Grade for a fresh decision on the ground that the tenancy was heritable and did not end with the death of the tenant. The Assistant Collector II Grade, thereafter, vide his order dated 8th November, 1965, decided that to respondent 4 a sum of Rs. 800 was due from the petitioners and respondent 5 and that they should deposit the same failing which they would be summarily ejected from the land in suit. The petitioners and respondent 5 did not file any appeal against that order but respondent 4 did file the appeal before the Collector, Moga. The Collector held that the Assistant Collector II Grade had no jurisdiction to allow any time to the petitioners and respondent 5 for making a deposit of Rs. 800, the arrears of the rent found due from them to respondent 4, as Budh Singh had failed to deposit the amount in time after the receipt of the notice in form "N" and his legal representatives had not been able to prove that the rent was not due from them or their predecessor Budh Singh. He, therefore, modified the order and directed that the petitioners and respondent 5 be ejected summarily from the land. Against that order, the petitioners and respondent 5 filed an appeal in the Court of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, which was dismissed on 29th September, 1966. A revision against that order by them was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, on 23rd May, 1967. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition in this Court on 3rd June, 1967.

(3.) Respondent 5, Lachman Singh, is one of the legal representatives of Budh Singh, being his son. He has not joined as petitioner in the writ petition and, therefore, he has been impleaded as respondent 5. He has not been served as he is stated to be in the Army. His interest is the same as the interest of the petitioners and, therefore, service on him is not necessary.