JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The writ petition is a challenge to the order passed by the authorities directing ejectment of a tenant for alleged non-payment of rent by him. The petition for ejectment was filed for alleged arrears of rent for 1978 to 1980 for the land admittedly held by the tenant. The petition had been filed on 6.10.1983. 2. The tenant’s contention was that he had already paid the rent for the crops Rabi 1978 to Kharif 1980 in the presence of a witness. This payment made in the presence of the witness was not taken as established by all the authorities, namely, Assistant Collector, Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. The writ petition challenges the order of ejectment passed for non-payment of arrears of rent. 3. Before the arguments got underway, I sought the counsel for the landlords/respondents to state how the petition was competent for ejectment of a tenant for alleged arrears of rent for a period more than three years prior to the presentation of the petition. The counsel refers me to a Full Bench ruling of this court in Gurmej Singh and others Versus Financial Commissioner and others 1980 PLJ 603 that has held that recovery of arrears of rent though barred by time does not ipso facto result in the loss of right available to a landlord to apply for an ejectment. I, therefore, take it as established that the landlord shall be at liberty to apply for ejectment for any period of tenancy so long as non-payment is established by the landlord or where a tenant pleads satisfaction of payment, it fails to establish. 4. The matter still cannot conclude without an adjudication of whether what is statutorily provided was complied with. Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 provides for a procedure for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. A landlord who decides to recover rent from a tenant is first of all required to apply in writing to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade having jurisdiction, who shall thereupon send a notice in the form prescribed either to deposit the rent or value thereof if payable in kind or give proof of having paid or of the fact that he is not liable to pay the whole of the rent. Where, after summary determination, the Assistant Collector finds that the tenant has not paid or deposited the rent, he shall eject the tenant summarily and put the landlord in possession of the land concern. Clause (3) states if the landlord refuses to receive rent or demands rent in excess or refuses to give a receipt, he may in writing inform Assistant Collector 2nd grade having jurisdiction of the fact and on such application, the Assistant Collector shall by written notice to accept the rent payable. From the reading of the provisions, it is revealed that before the ejectment is ordered, the Assistant Collector is required to give a notice for payment of rent and if only the tenant still does not pay or deposit the rent, a summary ejectment will follow. The Full Bench referred to by the counsel also brings out the same position. It states “the period of one month for payment of rent is statutory and no jurisdiction of any Assistant Collector or Appellate Authority would exists to extend this period. It is the noncompliance of this direction that would entail ejectment.” 5. Another argument which the counsel sought to advance is that the notice itself must be taken as a demand and false defence must be taken as resulting in ejectment is rejected and I find the order impugned is erroneous and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to make payment of lease @ 999.99 for three years commencing from 1978 to 1980 and make the payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the landlords. If they fail to receive the rent, the tenant shall be at liberty to adopt the procedure prescribed under the relevant provision of the Act. 6. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed on the above terms. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————