Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2060 (PNJ)

Bhajan Singh v. Gurdev Singh

2006-05-11

B.K.SRIVASTAVA

body2006
ORDER B.K. Srivastava, F.C. - This revision petition has been filed by Bhajan Singh, Joginder Singh etc. against Gaurdev Singh etc. of village Gharuan, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act against the order dated 30.4.2001 of Commissioner, Patiala Division and order dated 30.4.1998 of the Assistant Collector vide which ejectment application of the present petitioners/landlord was dismissed on the ground that the respondents/tenants did make efforts to pay the rent to the petitioners who avoided accepting the same. Petitioners seek restoration of the Collectors order dated 26.2.1999 vide which he remanded the case for issue-wise adjudication. 2. The petitioners had filed application under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for the ejectment of the respondents from land measuring 8 bigha - 8 biswa situated in village Gharuan on the ground that the respondents/tenants had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient reasons since May, 1987. They had thus committed a default in payment of rent. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kharar rejected the application vide his order dated 30.4.1998 on the ground that the respondents had verbally and in writing made every effort to pay the rent to the petitioners/landlord. In the appeal, the Collector, Ropar observed that issues were framed before the Assistant Collector but the case was not decided issue-wise. Therefore, there was a lapse in the adjudication. He, therefore, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector with the direction to decide the case afresh issue-wise after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties and examining the documentary evidence brought on record. 3. The respondents went in appeal before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 12.10.2000 observed that the contention of the respondents that they had made sincere efforts through verbal request to pay the rent but the petitioners had refused to accept the same deserved examination. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to the Collector, Ropar for looking into the genuineness of this additional issue. Thereafter, the Commissioner reviewed his order and found that it was already proved that petitioners/landlords had refused to accept the rent in spite of sincere efforts made by the tenants through personal request as well as legal notice. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to the Collector, Ropar for looking into the genuineness of this additional issue. Thereafter, the Commissioner reviewed his order and found that it was already proved that petitioners/landlords had refused to accept the rent in spite of sincere efforts made by the tenants through personal request as well as legal notice. He accordingly accepted the appeal by modifying his previous order. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that the review was unwarranted. 4. Before proceeding further I may clarify that the Commissioner is empowered under the Land Revenue Act to review his own order and modifying his finding after hearing the affected party. In this case he reviewed the order after hearing the petitioner. So, there is no legal infirmity. The scope of review as per the Punjab Land Revenue Act is wide and not limited as per the Civil Procedure Code. Perusal of Commissioners previous order dated 12.10.2000 reveals that the Commissioner had thought that the contention of the respondent regarding the efforts made by him to pay rent was a new ground additionally raised before him and that this deserved a probe. So, he remanded with this impression which was factually wrong because this contention had already been dealt and proved before the Assistant Collector. Therefore, when he discovered this while reconsidering the matter in review, he concluded that there was no need of remand as no material point or issue remained to be verified or explained further in this regard. Hence, he accepted the appeal of the respondents and set aside the Collectors remand order which had earlier endorsed. Thus, the review order which is now impugned has to be examined in the present revision petition on merits rather than on the technical ground of unsustainability on the plea that it was without jurisdiction or justification. 5. The Collectors remand order has also to be likewise seen in the light of merits in totality rather than the mere reasoning that issue-wise adjudication was not formally adopted by the Assistant Collector. The Collector had observed that the Assistant Collector did not give issue-wise findings although issues were framed. This is not true. Issues were not formally framed. In the written statement the respondents had admitted ownership of the petitioner and also the non-payment. The Collector had observed that the Assistant Collector did not give issue-wise findings although issues were framed. This is not true. Issues were not formally framed. In the written statement the respondents had admitted ownership of the petitioner and also the non-payment. So, the only point of dispute was whether the non-payment was willful on respondents part or it was due to avoidance of the payment by the petitioner, as alleged and explained by the respondent in the written statement. Thus, there was no other point to be explained. Issues are framed formally when many issues are involved; for example, when ownership of the landlord is not admitted or the landlord-tenant relationship is in doubt or when the payment is not admitted despite regular payment or when the default is attributed to certain reasons beyond control of tenant. 6. Originally, Naurata Ram was the owner of this land and Mehar Singh father of the present respondents was the tenant under him. Naurata Ram executed an agreement to sell the land to the present petitioners, but he sold the same to his tenant, Mehar Singh, the father of the present respondents. The petitioners went to civil Court for a decree of specific performance, got it and thus became the owner of the suit land. Mehar Singh, the tenant-respondent went in appeal before the Additional District Judge who upheld the decree but partially modified the order of the lower Court with the observation that Mehar Singh was a tenant on the suit land under the original owner, Naurata Ram. The petitioner should get the tenant dispossessed only in due course of law. The order of the Additional District Judge was upheld by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 21.9.1984. 7. It is on record that Mehar Singh gave a notice to the petitioners on 14.9.1987 offering rent which was not accepted. Thereafter, he also met the petitioners along with the elders of the village for the payment of rent but the same was not accepted. Thereafter, he applied to the Assistant Collector on 16.5.1994 for depositing the rent under Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. To counter the move of the tenants, the petitioners filed the suit for ejectment on 8.7.1994 on the ground of non-payment. 8. During the arguments before me the petitioners drew my attention to the fact that the rent at the rate of Rs. To counter the move of the tenants, the petitioners filed the suit for ejectment on 8.7.1994 on the ground of non-payment. 8. During the arguments before me the petitioners drew my attention to the fact that the rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per bigha was ridiculously low. It is also on record that Bhajan Singh, the present petitioner had given a statement before the Assistant Collector, Kharar on 11.7.1995 that the annual prevailing rent was Rs. 1500/- per bigha. This statement of the petitioner was not rebutted by the respondent. The Assistant Collector should have looked into this matter in order to arrive at fair rent, but he omitted. Therefore, vide my interim order dated 11.8.2005, I called upon the respondents to argue on the question of determination of reasonable rent. The counsel for the respondents was reminded on the next date of hearing i.e. 31.10.2005 to throw light on the question of fixation of reasonable rent. Thereafter, both the counsel submitted written arguments and they were also heard. 9. It is an admitted fact that the alleged rent deed showing rate of Rs. 15/- per bigha pertained to the year 1956-57 which cannot be accepted as a guiding year for deciding the reasonable rent in present times when the rent has shot up manifold. I am of the view that the reasonable rent which is decided now is applied with prospective effect i.e. from now (Kharif 2006) onward because the tenants did not know of it in the previous year. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 under Section 12 and the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Land Act, 1955 under Section 9 prescribe that maximum payable rent should not exceed 1/3rd of the value of the produce. Section 10 of the Punjab Tenancy Agricultural Act, 1955 says that the rent may be fixed by an agreement in writing and where there is no such agreement, the rent payable for the agricultural year preceding the period in respect of which the rent falls due or the rent as payable according to the usage of the locality or a reasonable rent. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act says that it is the rent not exceeding 1/3rd of the produce or value thereof as determined in prescribed manner. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act says that it is the rent not exceeding 1/3rd of the produce or value thereof as determined in prescribed manner. It also says that if the landlord provides any facility to the tenant, as agreed between the parties, the Assistant Collector shall take that into consideration. Here, there is, however, no such case of special facility extended by the landlord. 10. No rent was fixed between the parties after the petitioner, i.e. the new owner came into the picture. Therefore, a fair rent is to be determined as provided in Section 14 of the basic Act i.e. the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The best way appears to be to adopt the ratio approach rather than a rate in absolute terms because that varies with the price-rise every year. The prevailing rent of Rs. 1,500/- per bigha, as stated by the petitioner on 11.7.1995 before the Assistant Collector can be applied, at the most, for that period only, but with respect to the previous or subsequent years, it cannot be accepted because the Assistant Collector did not give any finding on the rate of rent for 1987 onwards. Ascertaining the prevailing rent in the absolute term will be a futile exercise as the market rate of rent keeps changing and the rate cannot be fixed through fresh litigation for each year. Therefore, the best way is to determine the rent at 1/3rd share of the value of the produce which can be calculated easily at the Minimum Support Price announced by the Government of India from time to time. It can be verified by the Revenue Officer of the area in case of any dispute between the parties in any given year. 10. While the suit for ejectment must be disallowed because the ground of willful non-payment of rent of the past period certainly stands disproved, the reasonable rate of rent at which the tenant should pay to the landowner now onward is 1/3rd share of the value of produce. As the recoverable amount for the past period will be negligible at the old rate of Rs. 15/- per bigha and there is no request for its payment, no order for arrears is passed. Announced. Order accordingly.