Arjun Singh vs Financial Commissioner and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—The 5th respondent Smt. Parmeshwari Devi filed an application u/s 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 before the Assistant Collector II Grade to direct the petitioner who is a tenant to pay the rent. On the said application, which has been filed in Form ''M'' a notice was served on the petitioner inform ''N''. On the basis of the material on record the A.C.II.G, passed an order directing the petitioner to pay the rent of Rs. 439.99P within 30 days from the date of order otherwise he would be evicted from the land in dispute. Aggrieved by the said order dated 7.2.1979 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector who dismissed the same on 27.6.1979. A further revision before the Commissioner was also dismissed on 4.9.1981 and still another revision was filed before the Financial Commissioner who dismissed the same on 5.1.1982. Having been unsuccessful before all the authorities, the tenant approached this Court for setting aside the order directing him to pay the rent to the land lady.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice in Form-N did not give him 30 days time for payment of rent and, therefore, the order of the authorities below are liable to be set aside on that sole ground.

Section 14-A (ii) reads as follows:-

"a landowner desiring to recover arrears of rent from a tenant shall apply in writing to the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, having jurisdiction, who shall thereupon send a notice in the form prescribed, to the tenant either to deposit the rent of value thereof if payable in kind or give proof of having paid it or of the fact that he is not liable to pay the whole or part of the rent, or of the fact of the landlord''s refusal to receive the same or to give a receipt, within the period specified in the notice. Where, after summary determination, as provided for in Sub-section (2) of section 10 of this Act, the Assistant Collector finds that the tenant has not paid or deposited the rent, he shall eject the tenant summarily and put the landowner in possession of the land concerned".

A reading of the above provision clearly shows that the tenant was required to pay the rent within the period prescribed in the notice. The section as such does not say that 30 days'' notice has to be given for the tenant to pay the rent. Rule 22 framed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, reads as follows:-

"Rule 22. Forms to be used for application and notices mentioned in Section 14-A of the Act (I) A landowner desiring to eject a tenant, under Clause (ii) to (vii) of Sub-section (1) of section 9 read with section 14-A (I) of the Act shall when applying to the Asstt. Collector, I grade having jurisdiction do so in writing in Form I."

Form N is prescribed as a notice to a tenant who is in arrears of rent, to deposit the rent etc. In the said form it is stated as follows:-

"You are now required, within a month, of the receipt of this notice (enter also the date on which this period would end to):-

(1) deposit the rent or the value thereof (if rent payable in kind) in this court; or

(2) give proof of having paid the rent;

(3) give proof not being liable to pay the whole or part of this demand; or

(4) give proof of the landlord''s refusal to receive the rent or give a receipt for it".

There cannot be any dispute that notice in Form N had been given to the petitioner. A reading of the order of the A.C.II.G dated 7.2.1979 clearly shows that the respondent inspite of service of notice in Form-N has failed to file written statement as also not led any evidence. He did not raise the objection as to the period of notice before the A.C.I.G. Even in the appeal before the Collector, the petitioner did not raise any objection that no notice as required u/s 14(A)(ii) was given to him. The only ground raised by him before the Collector in the appeal was that the land-lady Parmeshwari Devi has no right to collect Batai because she is not the owner of the land in dispute. He also raised the ground that he was not given a chance to lead evidence. These contentions were repelled by the collector on the ground that the revenue record and the mutation show that the 5th respondent is owner of the land in dispute and, therefore, the petitioners who were appellants before the Collector was liable to pay the batai. In regard to the contention that he was not given a chance to lead evidence, the Collector has noted that the counsel for the appellant made a statement before the A.C.I.G. on 31.7.1979 that he does not want to lead any evidence. Thus it is clear that no ground in regard to the period of notice was raised before the Collector. It is for the first time before the Commissioner in the revision petition the petitioner raised an objection that he was not served with the notice in Form-N. If he was not served with the notice in Form-N, then there is no question of his not being given the period of 30 days. In fact, there is no evidence on behalf of the petitioner to show that he was not served with Form-N. He has not let in any evidence. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not served with the notice is devoid of any merit. The notice served on the petitioner was not produced before this Court. He also did not say when he was served with the notice. As the allegation that he was not served with the notice was found to be not correct by the authorities below, I do not find any ground to differ with the said finding. The Financial Commissioner has clearly observed that from the orders of the A.C.II.G. that notice on Form-N was handed over to the petitioner in each case and the petitioner had more than one month period for payment of rent but he has not paid the rent as stipulated in the notice in Form-N. The petitioner also has not paid the rent. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the authorities below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay the rent to the 5th respondent. I do not find any ground warranting interference with the same. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.