SARDARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, challenge is to order dated 19.11.1997 passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh whereby petitioner has been ordered to be ejected.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that respondent No. 5 namely, Amarjit Singh son of Kishan Singh filed suit in the Court of Assistant Collector I Grade, Sangrur for rejectment of petitioner, Sardara Singh, from the land in dispute under Sections 7 and 8 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No. 5 alleged that petitioner is cultivating the land for the last more than 3 years and had entered in possession of the same as tenant in the year 1986. He further alleged that petitioner had not paid rent for the crops, Kharif 1989 to Rabi 1992. He alleged that petitioner is in arrears of rent and is liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. Petitioner contested the suit and in the written statement, contended that he had, been paying rent on harvesting of the crops and was not in arrears of rent. Petitioner also contended that he is not liable to be ejected under Section 8 of the Act. Assistant Collector I Grade, Sangrur, vide order dated 14.1.1994 ordered ejectment of the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act. Since petitioner was ordered to be ejected under Section 8, Assistant Collector I Grade did not pass order of ejectment under Section 7 on the ground of non-payment of rent and only decreed the suit with costs for the recovery of Rs. 82,968/-. Petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Collector, Sangrur, which was allowed on 25.3.1994. Collector held that under Section 8, tenant is not liable to be ejected on mere expiry of three years term mentioned therein. The learned Collector, however, held that the petitioner had not been able to establish that payment towards rent had been made. Accordingly, the Collector set aside the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner under Section 8, but at the same time directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 82,968/- in accordance with the decree passed by the Trial Court within six months from the date of the order, failing which petitioner was directed to be ejected from the land. Being aggrieved of the order of Collector, respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal in the Court of Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala which was dismissed on 25.9.1995. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh which was allowed on 19.12.1997 solely on the ground that petitioner had failed to deposit costs of the suit. Hence, this writ petition, challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that in suit, respondent No. 5 had claimed Rs. 82,968/- as rent for crops for the period Kharif 1989 to Rabi 1992, and in pursuance of the order of the Collector, petitioner deposited the rent within the time given by the Collector. It is contended that simply because the petitioner did not deposit the costs of the suit amounting to Rs. 5892.25, he cannot be ordered to be ejected because the costs awarded in the suit cannot be included in rent. In reply, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 has contended that decree passed against the petitioner is not severable and non-payment of costs will not absolve the petitioner from being ejected.