Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 541 (PNJ)

Notan Dass v. State of Haryana

2009-03-20

RANJIT SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J. (Oral).:-The petitioner is owner of a land measuring 17 kanals 14 marlas in village Sewali, District Faridabad. One Kanhi Ram, father of respondent Nos.6 to 8, was a tenant @ 1/3 batai under the petitioner. On death of Kanhi Ram, respondent Nos.6 to 8 became tenants. As per the petitioner, Kanhi Ram inducted respondent No.9 as a subtenant under him without his consent. Respondent Nos.6 to 8, as per the petitioner, did not pay rent or batai for the crops kharif 1998 to rabi 2001. This amount was Rs.60,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application under Section 14A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, “the Act”) for ejectment of the respondents on the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting. Respondent No.9 filed reply, copy of which is also annexed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents did not pay arrears of rent as contemplated under the proviso added to Section 40A(i) of the Act. He further points out that the petitioner was able to show that respondent No.9 had been inducted as a sub-tenant, a fact which was admitted by respondent No.6. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, however, dismissed this application for ejectment. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Collector on 29.5.2003. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Commissioner, who had set-aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and by the Collector. While setting-aside the order, the Commissioner had remanded the case to Assistant Collector Ist Grade for summoning respondent Nos.6 to 8 and allowing them to deposit the arrears of rent with interest and costs. This order passed on 12.9.2006 annexed with the petition as Annexure P-6 is, thus, impugned by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner impugned this order passed by the Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner but he also declined to interfere, finding that there was no infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner. Accordingly, this order is also under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Notice of motion was issued. Reply on behalf of respondent No.9 alone has been filed. Other respondents have not come forward to contest the petition. 4. The stand of respondent No.9 is that these proceedings were not maintainable and that respondent No.9 is sought to be evicted by the petitioner in collusion with respondent Nos.6 to 8. 3. Notice of motion was issued. Reply on behalf of respondent No.9 alone has been filed. Other respondents have not come forward to contest the petition. 4. The stand of respondent No.9 is that these proceedings were not maintainable and that respondent No.9 is sought to be evicted by the petitioner in collusion with respondent Nos.6 to 8. It is further disclosed that respondent No.9 had paid batai to the petitioner upto the year 2000 and had even moved an application for depositing rent for subsequent crops. The counsel would also point out that respondent No.9 had already deposited the rent/1/3rd batai upto Rabi 2007 vide Treasury Challan dated 25.4.2008. Copy of this challan has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. Respondent No.9 would also claim that he is now a direct tenant under the petitioner, a fact which is evident from the conduct and act of the petitioner by accepting rent from him, for which he had issued receipts, which were produced before the authorities and marked D2 to D14. Respondent No.9 pleads that no case for his eviction is made out as he has deposited the rent. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the Commissioner is totally unjustified in remanding the case to Assistant Collector Ist Grade with direction that respondent Nos.6 to 8 may be summoned as per rules and directed to tender the rent within a fixed time. The direction further was for taking evidence of both the parties into consideration and then decide the case on merits afresh. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 had not impugned this order passed by the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner and had not come forward to deposit the rent. The direction issued by the Commissioner to summon them and to ask them to tender the rent certainly is beyond jurisdiction of Commissioner. To an extent, learned counsel for the petitioner is justified that this will be in violation of the provisions of Section 14A(i) and the proviso contained therein. If the rent is not tendered within the stipulated period, the ejectment is to follow. Accordingly, the Commissioner certainly was not justified in issuing direction to summon respondent Nos.6 to 8 and then giving them direction to tender the rent as has been done. If the rent is not tendered within the stipulated period, the ejectment is to follow. Accordingly, the Commissioner certainly was not justified in issuing direction to summon respondent Nos.6 to 8 and then giving them direction to tender the rent as has been done. This part of the direction given by the Commissioner, thus, can not be sustained. 7. However, learned counsel for respondent No.9 also is justified, in pleading that he needs to be given a chance to prove that he has now become a direct tenant under the petitioner. The basis of this limb of the submission are the documents exhibited on record. The receipts marked D2 to D14 were produced by respondent No.9. These receipts, according to him, are the receipts showing payment of Batai/rent. The petitioner, however, disputes this fact and contends that these receipts relate to purchase of clothes by respondent No.9 from the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner would also seriously contest the plea that respondent No.9 is directly a tenant under him. 8. There is, thus, a dispute in regard to tenancy. Coupled with the fact that respondent No.9 has prima-facie placed material on record to indicate that he had deposited the rent, it would require determination if all these documents would indicate deposit of rent with necessary consequence flowing therefrom. It would be for the authorities to determine whether these receipts would show that the rent was tendered even if this act on the part of the petitioner would make respondent No.9 as a direct tenant under him. In case these receipts are found to be on account of payment of rent, it is obviously that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 14A(i) of the Act. If otherwise, it is found that these were not the receipts indicating payment of rent or that respondent No.9 is not a direct tenant under the petitioner, the necessary consequences of ejectment would follow because in that event no rent would have been paid as is envisaged under Section 14A(i) of the Act. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in the part of direction given by the Commissioner, remanding the case back to Assistant Collector Ist Grade to determine this aspect. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in the part of direction given by the Commissioner, remanding the case back to Assistant Collector Ist Grade to determine this aspect. It is made clear that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, this time would only consider the aspect whether respondent No.9 is a direct tenant under the petitioner and whether the receipts which he had tendered, was for payment of any rent. Assistant Collector Ist Grade would not summon respondent Nos.6 to 8 and would not give them any chance to deposit any rent. In this background and the view that this Court has taken, the reference and reliance on a Full Bench decision reported as Gurmej Singh and others Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 1980 P.L.J. 603 need not be gone into. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. --------------------