Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1282 (PNJ)

Raj Mal v. Vijay Kumar

2001-11-19

K.C.SHARMA

body2001
ORDER K.C. Sharma, F.C. - Relevant facts of the case are that one Jai Singh, father of the respondent submitted two applications in Form-L before ACIG, Maham for ejectment of the petitioners (tenants) on the ground that they had failed to pay rent from Kharif 1989 to Kharif 1991 in lieu of the land under their tenancy. The tenant-petitioners appeared before ACIG, Rohtak, and sought permission to deposit the fixed annual rent of Rs. 3/- per Bigha. The ACIG, vide order dated 6.12.1993, accepted the applications of the landlord and directed the ejectment of the tenants and this decision was set aside in appeal by the ld. Collector, Rohtak, vide order dated 6.9.1994, who remanded the case to the ACIG, Rohtak, for first settling the issue of the deposit of rent as prayed for by the petitioners. 2. The ACIG, Rohtak directed the tenants to deposit the rent alongwith 8% interest and allowed them to deposit the rent from Kharif 1989 to Kharif 1991 and ACIG dismissed the ejectment application on 29.7.1997. LRs of the Jai Singh preferred two appeals to the ld. Collector, Rohtak, on 17.6.1998 and these appeals were accepted. The aggrieved tenants went in revision to the ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. It was argued on behalf of the tenants that revenue entries were depicting annual fixed rent i.e. Chakota and they insisted that they had been paying the recorded rent regularly. It was also argued on behalf of the tenants that as per 1997(1) PLJ page 102, relationship of the landlord and tenant was one of the confidence and issuance of receipts is not necessary. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the landlord argued that the tenants did not tender the rent in time and they were rightly ordered to be ejected by the Collector. It was also argued that the time limit for payment could not be extended in view of the ruling 1995 LJR 281. It was also contended that a single default could lead to ejectment as per AIR 1980 S. C. 1464 : 1980 PLJ 346. The ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, vide the orders, came to the conclusion that tenants had made application for deposit of rent before ACIG, Rohtak, who failed to pass a specific order in this context and the tenants could not be made to suffer on account of delay by the Court. The ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, vide the orders, came to the conclusion that tenants had made application for deposit of rent before ACIG, Rohtak, who failed to pass a specific order in this context and the tenants could not be made to suffer on account of delay by the Court. After the assessment of the rent and the interest, the petitioner- tenants deposited the same. Therefore, on the basis of above logic and law, the ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, reached the findings that ld. Collector, Rohtak, had taken a harsh view regarding ejectment of the tenants and recommended this revision to this Court for acceptance. 3. Despite clear service neither the ld. counsel for the respondents nor the respondents are present. The case is taken up for arguments at 4-00 P.M. The ld. counsel for the petitioners submitted the following facts : (i) Application for recovery of Batai was filed by the landowner on 19.11.1992, for the crops Kharif 1989 to 1992. (ii) On the first date, ld. ACIG, Rohtak, was on leave i.e. 18.2.1993. (iii) An application was made before the ld. Collector on 18.2.1993 for granting the tenants the permission to deposit the rent of the disputed crops. An order to this effect was passed by the ld. Collector that this application should be considered on the date when the ACIG, Rohtak, hears the main case of ejectment. 4. According to the ld. Counsel for the petitioner this recourse was taken up by them on the refusal of the landlord to accept the rent. The eviction order was passed by the ACIG, Rohtak, on 6.12.1993. On appeal against this order, the ld. Collector, Rohtak, vide order dated 6.9.1994, directed the ACIG, Rohtak, to decide the application afresh. The ld. ACIG. decided the case in favour of the petitioner on 29.7.1997 and allowed the deposit of rent arrears of Batai. The respondents filed an appeal before the ld. Collector. Rohtak, against the said order, which was decided on 17.6.1998, reversing the order of ACIG, Rohtak. 5. The affected tenants filed a revision before the ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who came to the conclusion that the ld. Collector, should have decided the application of the tenants by framing issues and should have decided whether the disputed rent was deposited within 15 days or not. It was further argued that the ld. 5. The affected tenants filed a revision before the ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who came to the conclusion that the ld. Collector, should have decided the application of the tenants by framing issues and should have decided whether the disputed rent was deposited within 15 days or not. It was further argued that the ld. Collector, who also reached the conclusion that 15 days time was to be calculated from 18.2.1993, which is not correct as per provisions of law as the time to be calculated is from the date when the issues are framed after application of mind by the trial Court. The ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, vide the present reference has recommended the setting aside of the decision of ld. Collector, Rohtak, and maintaining that of ACIG, Rohtak, dated 29.7.1997. 6. The amendment of Section 14-A of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act in the year 1992, has bestowed an additional protection on the tenants who are allowed to deposit the due rent in favour of the landlord within 15 days of the first hearing of the case before ACIG and such a hearing dates from the day of application of mind to the issues involved in application under Form- L. Therefore, I find the reference of the ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, fully in consonance with the provisions of law and spirit of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, and accept the same as the decision of the ld. Collector, Rohtak, was not in accordance with the letter and spirit of amended law on the subject. However, the tenants in future should deposit the due rent when it is due and any failure in future can be visited by the ejectment, in case such a failure is repeated. Petition accepted.