Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 999 (PNJ)

Surinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab

2000-08-25

J.S.NARANG, JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA

body2000
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - Two pieces of land. Two sets of proceedings initiated in the year 1982 for eviction of the petitioner on account of non- payment of rent. Two revenue revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner. Both having been decided against the petitioner vide order dated July 7, 1997, he has filed these two writ petitions. The parties are common. The issue is one - Did the petitioner fail to pay rent without sufficient cause ? Both these petitions can be disposed of by one order. The facts, as averred in Civil Writ Petition No. 2972 of 1998, may be briefly noticed. 2. Ajit Singh along with his two sons filed an application for the eviction of the tenant, viz. the present petitioner, from an area measuring 44 Kanals 2 Marlas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 172//16(6-16), 17(7-18), 18/1(8-11), 24(8-0), 25(8-0), 173//20/2(3-6), 21/1(1-11), situate in the revenue estate of Nakodar, on the ground that he had failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause since Kharif 1982. The application was contested on various grounds. It was, inter alia, pleaded that the tenant was not aware of the change of ownership, and that the landlord had not accepted the rent. After consideration of the matter, the Assistant Collector, Nakodar, upheld the claim of the landlord. It was noticed that there was default regarding the payment of rent from Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1978, Rabi 1979 to Kharif 1981 and then from the year 1982 onwards. After examination of the evidence, the Assistant Collector held that the tenant had not been regular in making the payment. No satisfactory explanation had been given. The contention that the landlord was not accepting the payment was rejected. Resultantly, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted. He filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated February 27, 1987. The findings of the Collector were affirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated September 11, 1989. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated July 7, 1997. 3. The second petition relates to the land measuring 31 Kanals 8 Marlas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 128/25(1-8), 144/5/1/(1-9), 22/2(7-8), 163//2/(7-8), 9/1(6-4), 144/19/1/(7-11), which is also situated in the revenue estate of Nakodar. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated July 7, 1997. 3. The second petition relates to the land measuring 31 Kanals 8 Marlas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 128/25(1-8), 144/5/1/(1-9), 22/2(7-8), 163//2/(7-8), 9/1(6-4), 144/19/1/(7-11), which is also situated in the revenue estate of Nakodar. In this case also a petition for the eviction of the petitioner was filed in form L. It was alleged that he had failed to pay rent without sufficient cause for Sauni 1987. The petitioner contested the claim. He alleged that he was dispossessed from the land. He had filed a civil suit for restoration of possession. The claim was upheld. The possession was restored on August 25, 1987. He had paid an amount of Rs. 3740.50 to the landlord as compensation for the standing crops and the expenses incurred in respect thereof. The amount paid as compensation should be treated as rent paid. 4. After examination of the evidence the Assistant Collector found that the tenant-petitioner had committed a default in payment of rent without sufficient cause. Vide order dated July 16, 1990 the petition for the eviction of the tenant was allowed. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated December 3, 1991. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. The Authority recommended the case for acceptance to the Financial Commissioner. However the Financial Commissioner found that the amount of Rs. 3,740.50 paid by the tenant was a compensation for the crop which was standing at the time of his taking over the possession from the landlord. He had not paid the rent after harvesting the crop. Thus, the recommendation made by the Commissioner was rejected. The petitioner has filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11782 of 1997 to challenge this order. 5. Mr. V.G. Dogra, learned Counsel, contended that the petitioner was not aware of the change of ownership of the land. Thus, there was sufficient cause for non-payment of rent. In any case, no order of eviction could have been passed on account of a single default. Still further, the counsel submitted that the compensation having been paid, no rent had become due and payable. As such, no ground for eviction from the land measuring 31 kanals 8 marlas (the subject-matter of C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1997) was made out. In any case, no order of eviction could have been passed on account of a single default. Still further, the counsel submitted that the compensation having been paid, no rent had become due and payable. As such, no ground for eviction from the land measuring 31 kanals 8 marlas (the subject-matter of C.W.P. No. 11782 of 1997) was made out. It was also contended that the Financial Commissioner had erred in overlooking this aspect of the matter. 6. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner was controverted by Mr. B.S. Brar, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlords. 7. As for the first contention that the petitioner was not aware of the factum of transfer of ownership, it may be noticed that the relationship was never denied. A perusal of the order dated June 21, 1985 passed by the Assistant Collector, Nakodar copy at Annexure P2 with the writ petition) shows that "the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents was "admitted". This being the factual position, the petitioner is not entitled to now contend that there was doubt about the ownership. Resultantly, the plea that there was sufficient cause for non-payment of rent as the petitioner was not aware of the change of ownership cannot be sustained. 8. Equally lacking in merit is the contention that the petitioner had been paying rent and that the order of eviction could not have been passed for a single default. The authorities below have found that the petitioner had been committing repeated defaults. Reference in this regard may be made to the order of the Assistant Collector, referred to earlier. It has been found that vide order dated October 12, 1982 "the respondents (including the present petitioner) were ordered to make payment of rent of Rs. 1467.67. Similarly the rent for the crops Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1978 was ordered to be paid by the A.C. Ist Grade vide his orders dated 27.1.1982. .......Similarly the rent for the crops Kharif 1979 to Kharif 1981 was recovered...........according to orders dated 29.7.1983.......... a copy of which is Ex.A-5." It is, thus, clear that there were continuous defaults. The petitioner had failed to pay rent regularly. The plea of single default is wholly untenable. Still further, even if it is assumed that there was a solitary default, the law does not condone it without sufficient cause being shown. a copy of which is Ex.A-5." It is, thus, clear that there were continuous defaults. The petitioner had failed to pay rent regularly. The plea of single default is wholly untenable. Still further, even if it is assumed that there was a solitary default, the law does not condone it without sufficient cause being shown. Reference in this behalf may be made to the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raj Kanta v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1980 P.L.J. 346. It was held by their Lordships that "if there is any default ranging from one to several, the tenant has got to show sufficient cause if his case is to be taken out of the mischief of Section 9(1)(ii)." Thus, even a single default cannot be condoned without a sufficient cause being established. In the present case there have been series of defaults without any cause. 9. Mr. Dogra contended that the petitioner had been making applications for the deposit of the rent before the competent authority. Even this matter has been considered by the authorities. The applications, copies of which have been placed on record as R.W.3/1 to R.W.3/8, have been considered. It has been found that the applications were "always quite belated". It has been noticed that the application for the crops Kharif 1982 to Kharif 1983 was moved on February 23, 1984. It was not even suggested that the finding recorded by the authorities is not correct. Thus, the explanation given by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 10. Faced with this situation, Mr. Dogra contended that the petitioner having made the deposit of Rs. 3740.50, it could not be said that there was any default in the payment of rent, so far as the second case is concerned. 11. Even this contention cannot be accepted. Admittedly, there was a standing crop on the land when the petitioner was handed over the possession on August 25, 1987. The landlord had spent money on ploughing, seed, manure and irrigation. The compensation paid on this account cannot amount to payment of rent. In any event, no evidence was produced to show as to what was the actual receipt at the time of the harvest or that the amount already paid was equal to the landlords share out of the crop. In fact, the petitioner took contradictory pleas. The compensation paid on this account cannot amount to payment of rent. In any event, no evidence was produced to show as to what was the actual receipt at the time of the harvest or that the amount already paid was equal to the landlords share out of the crop. In fact, the petitioner took contradictory pleas. At one time it was suggested that there was a failure of crop on account of drought. At another, the claim was that the payment had been made. Mr. Dogra was unable to refer to any clear evidence to show that there was no default. 12. Lastly, it was contended that the Financial Commissioner has not considered the matter in the right perspective. 13. We are unable to accept this contention. There are concurrent findings regarding series of defaults committed by the petitioner. It is true that the law is heavily loaded in favour of the tenant. Yet, it is also clear that the law expects the tenant to pay regularly. A default can be condoned only if sufficient cause is shown. Not otherwise. The petitioner had failed to do so. The authorities have found it as a fact that there were regular defaults without any cause. The facts have been clearly noticed. We find no ground to interference with the findings recorded by the authorities. There is no error which may need correction in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No other point has been raised. We find no merit in both the writ petitions. Consequently, both are dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.