Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 455 (PNJ)

Chander (Dead) through LRs. v. State of Haryana

2002-04-26

AMAR DUTT

body2002
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - The petitioner, who was a tenant of 5 Bighas 6 Biswas of land situated in Narnaul belonging to respondent No. 2, has filed the present writ for challenging the orders Annexures P1 to P4 directing his ejectment from the land in question on account of failure to deposit the arrears of rent. 2-3. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 had filed suits for the recovery of rent for the period Kharif 1974 to 1977, Kharif 1977 to rabi 1979 and Kharif 1979 to rabi 1981. These suits were decreed and the petitioner was required to deposit the arrears of rent within a period of six months as stipulated in Section 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (in short "the 1955 Act"). In the suit pertaining to Kharif 1974 to 1977, along with the arrears of rent claimed, the Court had directed the payment of Rs. 1858/- as costs. These costs were not deposited and this failure occasioned the filing of an application by respondent No. 2 before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul on 15.5.1982. This application was allowed on 6.8.1982. The appeal filed before the Collector, Narnaul was dismissed on 2.11.1982 and revision before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, met the same fate on 17.3.1983. Further revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana too was not successful and was dismissed on 8.11.1983. 4. The petitioner challenges the legality of these orders on the ground that from a combined reading of Section 7 of the 1955 Act along with Sections 4(3) and (4) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 it is abundantly clear that a tenant is required to deposit, pursuant to an order passed on an application for recovery of arrears of rent, only the amount determined as arrears and not any costs, which have been assessed. 5. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 2, the factual averments regarding the circumstances which led to the passing of the impugned orders are not disputed. Respondents No. 2 had, in the written statement, adverted to the terms in which the decree for Rs. 5701.75 alongwith costs of Rs. 1858/- was passed. The relevant portion of the decree is as under :- "In the presence of Sh. Prem Nath Gupta, counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Respondents No. 2 had, in the written statement, adverted to the terms in which the decree for Rs. 5701.75 alongwith costs of Rs. 1858/- was passed. The relevant portion of the decree is as under :- "In the presence of Sh. Prem Nath Gupta, counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Rang Lal, counsel for the defendant, the suit is presented in the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Narnaul and it is ordered that the suit is decreed for Rs. 5701.75 alongwith proportionate costs and it is further ordered that if the defendant does not pay the decretal amount within six months, he shall be evicted from the suit land. Decree sheet the prepared." It is submitted that the view taken by the revenue Courts is not illegal and should be upheld. 6. 5701.75 alongwith proportionate costs and it is further ordered that if the defendant does not pay the decretal amount within six months, he shall be evicted from the suit land. Decree sheet the prepared." It is submitted that the view taken by the revenue Courts is not illegal and should be upheld. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the provisions of Section 7 of the 1955 Act, which reads as under :- "Termination of tenancy - (1) No tenancy shall be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of this Act or except on any of the following grounds, namely :- (a) xx xx xx xx (b) that the tenant has failed to pay rent within a period of six months after it falls due : Provided that no tenant shall be ejected under this clause unless he has been afforded an opportunity to pay the arrears of rent within a further period of six months from the date of the decree or order directing his ejectment and he had failed to pay such arrears during that period ; (c) that the tenant, not being a widow, a minor, an unmarried woman, a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a person incapable of cultivating land by reasons of physical or mental infirmity has after commencement of the Presidents Act sublet without the consent in writing of the landowner, the land comprising his tenancy or any part thereof; (d) that the tenant has, without sufficient cause, failed to cultivate personally such land in the manner and to the extent customary in the locality in which such land is situated; (e) that the tenant has used such land or any part thereof in a manner which is likely to render the land unfit for the purpose for which it was leased to him; (f) that the tenant, on demand in writing by the landowner, has refused to execute a kabuliyat agreeing to pay rent in respect of his tenancy in accordance with the provisions of Sections 9 and 10." When this provision is read alongwith Sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887, which defines that rent and arrears of rent as under :- "(3) "rent" means whatever is payable to a landlord in money, kind or service by a tenant on account of the use of occupation of land held by him; (4) "arrear of rent" means rent which remains unpaid after the date on which it becomes payable." the only inference, which can be drawn is that the ejectment for non-payment of arrears of rent as contemplated under Section 7 of the 1955 Act would not cover the cases where in addition to a direction for payment of arrears of rent within six months, the Court has also awarded costs of the suit for recovery of the rent. In this view of nine, I am supported by the observations of V.K. Jhanji, J. of this Court in C.W.P. No. 17852 of 1997 Sardar Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 14.9.1999. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders Annexures P1 to P4 are set aside. No costs. Petition allowed.