GANGAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of CWP Nos. 1468, 1292, 1447, 1448 and 1449 of 1971 as common questions of law and fact are involved. Gangal Singh petitioner is the landowner and the private respondents in these petitions are the tenants under him. To better appreciate the controversy in these cases, it will be useful to refer to the facts in CWP No. 1468 of 1971.

(2.) Gangal Singh petitioner filed a suit on 18th September, 1968, under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 , read with Section 9(1)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ballabgarh, for ejectment of Daljit Sing tenant-respondent No. 2 on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause with respect to six harvests i.e. from Kharif 1965 to Rabi 1968 and for recovery of the arrears of rent. Daljit Singh tenant appeared and contested the claim. He pleaded that the landowner had been refusing to accept the rent and ultimately he had to file an application under Section 14-A(iii) of the Act before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 19th July, 1968, with a prayer that Rs. 295.01 which was the rent of the land in dispute be got paid to the landowner and a receipt for the same be got issued to the applicant or this money may be allowed to be deposited in the Court. That the landowner had refused to accept the rent even in these proceedings and the same had to be deposited in the treasury on 18th October, 1968, under the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated 17th October, 1968, under the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated 17th October, 1968. The landowners never issued any receipt to the tenant and that he had never made a wilful default in the payment of the rent. The Assistant Collector was satisfied with the defence raised by Daljit tenant and he dismissed the suit on 30th September, 1969. The petitioner-landowner filed an appeal against this order. The Collector allowed the same vide his order dated 6th March, 1970, accepted the plea of the landowner and ordered the ejectment of the tenant. The appeal against this order filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 1st July, 1970. Dissatisfied with this order, the tenant filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The same was allowed on 15th December, 1970. The orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner were set aside and the order of the Assistant Collector dismissing the suit was restored.

(3.) Similar are the facts in other petitions also. Dissatisfied with these orders of the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.