KESAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Kesar and other petitioners own lands in village Hiranwali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, Jassu, respondent No. 5, is a tenant under them in an area of 50 kanals and 3 marlas of land. The petitioners filed an application under Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), read with Rule 22 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules) in Form 'M' before the Assistant Collector II Grade, Fazilka, on the plea that Jassu, their tenant, had not paid rent from Rabi 1962 to Rabi 1964 to the land-owners. They prayed that since the tenant had made a default in payment of the rent, he should be summarily ejected. The Assistant Collector issued notice to Jassu, the tenant, in Form 'N' prescribed by the Rules, which was served on the tenant on 5th November, 1974, and the date fixed in that notice for appearance was 8th of December, 1964. However, the presiding officer was not present on that date and the case was adjourned to 23rd December, 1964. For the same reason, the case was adjourned to 5th January, 1965 and then to 22nd January, 1965, the presiding officer being not present on any of these dates. Ultimately after a summary enquiry and not believing the contention of the tenant that the landlords had refused to accept rent despite his best efforts, the Assistant Collector allowed the application of the landlords vide his order dated 20th January, 1966 and ordered the ejectment of the tenant. Aggrieved by this order, Jassu filed an appeal to the Collector, Fazilka, who accepted the appeal of the tenant and set aside the order pased by the Assistant Collector Grade II. He held that it was obligatory on the Assistant Collector to give time of one month from the date of order to the tenant to deposit the amount due. It may be mentioned here that by an interim order, the Collector had allowed the tenant to deposit the amount of Rs. 689/-. As mentioned earlier, the Collector accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. The petitioners went up in appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner also took the view that in case there was a dispute with regard to the correctness of the amount of the arrears claimed by the landlords and the same dispute was determined by the Assistant Collector, the Assistant Collector was obliged to give the tenant time to deposit arrears. While recapitulating the Commissioner had noticed that a notice in Form 'N' was issued to the respondent and his reply was that rent for so many harvests was not actually due and that default in the payment of rent took place simply because the appellant-land-owners refused to give receipt for the rent from Rabi 1962. To reach his conclusions, the learned Commissioner relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Balwant Singh V. Sodhi Lal Singh, 1966 PunLJ 76. The appeal was dismissed. A revision petition was then filed by the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner. The learned Financial Commissioner has also observed in his judgment that a notice in Form 'N' was accordingly issued. Jassu alleged that batai had been given for some of the harvests in dispute. The Financial Commissioner repelled the contention of the petitioners that no authority could extend the time beyond the period of one month given in Form 'N' for the payment of arrears of rent. The learned Financial Commissioner concurred with the decision of the lower authorities and dismissed the revision petition on the 21st July, 1967. It may be mentioned here that after the passing of the ejectment order, Jassu, the tenant, had been ejected and he has not been restored land till today. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the litigation before the Revenue Authorities, the petitioners have filed this present petition. Mr. P.N. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that the provisions of Section 14-A of the Act and Rule 22 as well as Form 'N' of the Act are mandatory. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, the relevant provisions are reproduced below :-

(2.) The learned counsel vigorously argued that in view of the language of Section 14-A, Rule 22 and Form 'N' of the Act, no extension whatsoever can be granted beyond 30 days of the receipt of the notice. In support of this contention he has cited Dhanna V. Siri Parkash and others,1962 PunLR 855, Thana Singh and others V. Financial Commissioner Punjab and others, 1969 PunLJ 194, Puran Singh V. Buta Singh,1976 PunLJ 475and Khumba Ram V. Smt. Nand Kaur,1970 PunLJ 774, and the decision dated 21st July, 1967 of Shri A.L. Fletcher, Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab (Annexure "E", appended to the petition). These authorities do not support the proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the case reported in Dhanna's case , the Assistant Collector determined the arrears of rent and ordered the tenant to pay the same within one month. The tenant did not make payment. He filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed but the tenant was given a further time of ten days to deposit the arrears. The learned Judge held that the Collector had no power to extend the time fixed by the Assistant Collector. This authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Thana Singh's case also the facts were different. The tenant had died during the pendency of an application under Section 14-A of the Act and some of his legal heirs were minors and ejectment orders should not have been passed and since there was a dispute with regard to the payment of rent the landlord should have been directed to file a suit. Both these contentions were rejected. Facts of Thana Singh's case were entirely different. Moreover decision of Balwant Singh's case was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who mainly relied upon Amar Nath's case. This case was cited before the Division Bench in Balwant Singh's case but the Division Bench did not affirm it. Rather it took a contrary view as mentioned earlier. The decisions of the Financial Commissioners in which a view contrary to ratio of Balwant Singh's case has been taken did not lay down correct law and need not be discussed. In the present case since the tenant had not admitted the claim of the landlord in toto and contended that rent for all the harvests was not due and the landlords had not given receipt, these pleas had to be and had in fact been adjudicated upon by the learned Collector. The Collector was fully justified in granting time to the tenant and orders of the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are perfectly legal and valid.

(3.) Consequently, I find that there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 200/-.