JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 16.05.2003(Annexure P-9) passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur; 20.12.2004 (Annexure P-10) passed by Collector Gurdaspur; order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 07.12.2011 (Annexure P-14) passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, whereby petitioners No.1 to 5 and respondent Nos.6 to 14 have been ordered to be evicted under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (henceforth to be referred as ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1902 Sh. Gurdit Singh(predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) son of Santa Singh resident of village Mahadev Khurd, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur gave the land in dispute measuring 77 kanal 12 marla, situated in the said village to Mahant Lachman Dass for maintenance of Dharamshala, but the ownership of the land in question remained with Gurdit Singh. Now the petitioners are successors-in-interest of said Gurdit Singh. The land in the revenue record in ownership column is in the name of successors-ininterest of said Gurdit Singh. In the year 1902 the Deputy Commissioner exempted the land from payment of land revenue (muafi). Subsequently vide notification dated 01.06.1922, the maintenance of the Dharamshala was given to Lachman Dass. By another order dated 19.12.1927 for maintenance of Guruduwara, the managing committee of the Guruduwara came into possession but the ownership remained in the name of Gurdit Singh. After his death the mutation of inheritance has been sanctioned in the name of the petitioners and some of the private respondents No.6 to 14. The Gurudwara continued to remain in possession of the land in question and the same was shown in the cultivation column in the Jamabandi up to 1963. The land in question was being cultivated through various persons. It is alleged that subsequently successors of the Gurdit Singh entered into possession over the land in question in their own right as owners of the land and the rent column i.e. Column No.9 in the Jamabandi is blank. Petitioners, therefore, claim that they are not tenant of anybody and are in possession of land independently and individually in their own right and not as tenant as is clear from Jamabandi for the year 1973-74. Petitioners, therefore, claim that they are not tenant of anybody and are in possession of land independently and individually in their own right and not as tenant as is clear from Jamabandi for the year 1973-74. Same is the position in the subsequent Jamabandis for the years 1978-79 & 1983-84. It is further averred in the writ petition that Muafi (exemption from deposit of land revenue) was up to December, 1927. It is submitted that a tenant can be dispossessed in accordance with the due procedure of law. He is required to file a suit within one year from the date of his dispossession before the revenue Court under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and suit for restoration of the possession before the revenue authorities can be filed within one year. Thereafter remedy before the revenue authorities is barred and parties have to approach the civil Court. In the instant case the Gurudwara Managing Committee did not approach the civil court rather had filed an application in Forum J of the Act & Rule. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade allowed the application of the Gurudwara Managing committee vide order dated 16.05.2003 (Annexure P-9). The Collector dismissed the appeal of the petitioners vide order dated 20.12.2004 (Annexure P-10). The revision filed by the petitioners stands dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Commissioner and further revision before the Financial Commissioner has been dismissed vide order dated 7.12.2011 (Annexure P-14). Hence, the instant writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for caveator-respondent No.5 and perused the record. 4. Mr. R.D. Bawa, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that their predecessor-in-interest Gurdit Singh had given the land for religious purpose for a limited period and the land revenue of the land in question was exempted by the Deputy Commissioner till 1927. In the year 1973-74, the petitioners have become owners in possession of the land in question in their own right and they are not tenants of the respondent-Gurudwara Managing Committee. As such they cannot be evicted by the revenue authorities since they are in possession of land for more than 38 years. In the year 1973-74, the petitioners have become owners in possession of the land in question in their own right and they are not tenants of the respondent-Gurudwara Managing Committee. As such they cannot be evicted by the revenue authorities since they are in possession of land for more than 38 years. In view of Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, if possession is retained by an owner then suit before the revenue courts can be filed within one year and the present application for eviction is barred under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.5 contended that petitioners were tenants of the Gurudwara Managing Committee. They had been paying the rent to the managing committee of the gurudwara. The land was given on lease by the gurudwara managing committee for maintenance of the Gurudwara which is a charitable and religious purpose. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 made reference to Anneuxres P-15 and P-18 to contend that Darshan Singh son of Gurdit Singh had taken the land on lease on 13.05.1956. Thereafter Kashmira Singh had take the land on lease on 10.04.1959 (Annexure P-19). Then thereafter Pritam Singh son of Gurdit Singh had taken the land on lease vide Anneuxres P-20 and P-21 in the year 1948-49. The receipts with reference to payments of rent are dated 21.03.1953. As such the petitioners cannot deny that they are not tenants of the management committee and cannot be evicted. It is settled principle of law that once a tenant, always a tenant. The petitioners continue to be tenants. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that petitioners have failed to prove as to how they came in exclusive possession as owners once they had taken the land on lease and which was being leased out by the gurudwara managing committee. 6. I have considered the rival contentions addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Before I advert to the contentions of the parties, I would like to make a reference that in the districts of Punjab Dholi tenure is a peculiar kind of tenure. It is a rent free grant of land by the owner/or the village community for the benefit of Temple, Mosque, Shrines or to a person for religious purposes. 7. Before I advert to the contentions of the parties, I would like to make a reference that in the districts of Punjab Dholi tenure is a peculiar kind of tenure. It is a rent free grant of land by the owner/or the village community for the benefit of Temple, Mosque, Shrines or to a person for religious purposes. In the revenue record the owner is continued to be recorded as owner and the grantee/trustee is recorded as a tenant in the column of cultivation. So long as the purpose for which the grant is made carried out, it cannot be resumed and if the holder fails to carry out the duties of his office, the owner can eject him and put someone else in a like tenure. Gurdit Singh by way of charitable grant had given the land to the Gurudwara through its Managing committee and the income of the land was used for the upkeep of the shrines and for performing various religious duties. In fact, the land given to a religious authority is in the nature of tenancy in perpetuity. A reference in this regard can be made to the judgment delivered by Division Bench in the case of Sewa Ram Vs. Udaygir, AIR 1922 (Lahore) 126 and Jaswant Lal Vs. Govardhan Lal, AIR 1937 (Lahore) 804, which indicate that the grant is in the nature of permanent creation of rights in favour of the trustees. For that reason the land is also exempted from the land revenue. In the present case also Annexure P-5 is the document indicating that the Muafi was granted with regard to the land which was initially given for Dharamshala/Gurudwara through Lachman Dass. It is also clear from the Jamabandi for the year 1926-27 (Annexure P-8) as well as Jamabandi for the year 1973-74 and in subsequent Jamabandi. This fact is not denied by the petitioners that land was given in the year 1902 by their predecessor-ininterest Gurdit Singh to the Dharamshala/Gurudwara and some of the land to Kabristan, which are all relegious purpose and in this manner they were deriving their income from the agricultural land given to them as trustee/grantee. The fact is proved from the document on record that the petitioners had remained tenants of the Gurudwara on land in question. The fact is proved from the document on record that the petitioners had remained tenants of the Gurudwara on land in question. This fact is proved from the document Annexure P-17 Shanti Parkash took the land on lease and thereafter Darshan Singh son of Gurdit Singh became tenant by getting it in open auction (Annexure P-18) and then Kashmira Singh son of Gurdit Singh became tenant by getting it in open auction (Annexre P-19) and subsequently land was given to Pritam Singh son of Gurdit Singh on lease vide Annexure P-20 and P-21. 8. The documentary evidence referred in foregoing paras clearly shows that petitioners are tenants of the land in question. As such they can be evicted for non-payment of lease money/share in the produce in accordance with law and that is why respondent No.5 filed an application, which was allowed by the competent authority and the petitioners have failed before all the revenue authorities starting from Assistant Collector Ist Grade up to Financial Commissioner. All the revenue authorities have concurrently found that petitioners are tenant and had failed to make the payment of rent to respondent No.5. In the case of Raj Kanta Vs. Financial Commissioner, AIR 1980 SCC 1464, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that single default in payment of rent/batai without any sufficient cause is sufficient to order the ejectment of the tenant. This is the case where the land in question is being taken by the petitioners on lease which was donated by their ancestor for religious purpose and thereafter they refused to pay the rent/batai and have started asserting their ownership right. Such a tenant is not entitled to any indulgence in the writ jurisdiction. 9. Furthermore petitioners are also estopped by their act and conduct from claiming ownership rights over the land since the land was given by their ancestor for religious purpose and they had been taking the land on lease and the lease money is being used by the religious institutions for performing the religious duties and for welfare of the community as well as of the society through its managing committee. It is common knowledge that Gurudwara provides food and shelter free of cost to everybody without distinction of caste and creed. It is common knowledge that Gurudwara provides food and shelter free of cost to everybody without distinction of caste and creed. Since all the authorities have found that the petitioners are not paying the rent/batai and they had executed the pattanamas by taking the land on lease/entered on the land as tenants, they have rightly been evicted by the revenue authorities. This is not the case of the petitioners that religious institution is not performing the purpose for which land was given. 10. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act bars the jurisdiction of revenue Court beyond one year of taking possession by the owner from a tenant. This section is not applicable, as the proceedings are under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and there is no bar under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and Rules framed thereunder for eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-paymnet of rent. The conduct of the petitioners is not appreciable as they are not even attaching any sanctity to the sentiments of their ancestor who donated different parcels of land for various religious purposes such as Dharamshala, Gurudwara, Kabristan. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails. Dismissed. ------------------