Dhanna vs Siri Parkash and Others

Tek Chand, J.—This order will dispose of civil Miscellaneous petitions Nos. 3744 and 3745 of 1961, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the facts are common.

The petition in C.M. 3744 of 1961, is a tenant of Respondent No. 1, Sri Parkash. The Financial Commissioner and the Assistant Collector. II Grade, Hissar, are impleaded as Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The landlord had moved the Assistant Collector, II Grade, u/s 14(A) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953) against the Petitioner for the recovery of rent for the harvest Kharif 1959. On 9th January, 1961, the Assistant Collector, II Grade, passed an order directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 350.02 nP. to Respondent No. 1 within a period of one month from the date of the order failing which the tenant would be rendering himself liable to ejectment.

This amount, however, was not paid by the tenant by 10th February, 1961. The tenant filed appeal to the Collector on 22nd February, 1961. He also applied for an ad interim order for stay of dispossession. On 13th March, 1961, the; eviction was ordered to be stayed. On 13th June, 1961, the appeal was dismissed by the Collector but an order was passed requiring the tenant to pay the rent found due within ten days on pain of eviction which runs as under--

The Appellant (the tenant) should deposit the amount within ten days failing which he will be liable for eviction from the land under his tenancy.

An appeal was taken by the landlord to the Commissioner seeking revocation of the order granting the extension of ten days to the tenant. The Commissioner expressed the view that in view of the clear language of Section 14(A)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the Collector had no jurisdiction to pass an order extending the period for payment of the rent and thus to avert eviction. Reliance was placed on two orders passed by the Financial Commissioners in Sham Dass v. Mange and Ors. 1959 L.L.T. 49, and Kulu Ram v. Ujagar Singh 1960 L.L.T. 65. The tenant''s revision was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner which has given rise to this petition.

Section 14(A)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, provides that a landowner desiring to recover arrears of rent from a tenant shall apply in writing to the Assistant Collector, II Grade having jurisdiction, who shall thereupon send a notice, in the form prescribed, to the tenant either to deposit the rent or 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 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. In this case notice in accordance with form ''N'' was given to the tenant. The notice gave one month to the tenant for compliance and provided that if there was failure to comply with the orders the tenant would be ejected summarily from the land. The first argument advanced before me is that after the statutory notice is given, it is not open to the Collector or the Assistant Collector to extend any further time as has been done in the case. This, according to the learned Counsel for the Respondent, was the first error committed by the Collector when by his order, dated 13th June, 1961, he extended the period for paying Rs. 350.02 nP.

It is then urged that within a month the order was not complied with. The appeal was filed on 22nd February, 1961, when an application for stay was made and the attention of the Collector was not drawn to the period of one month having already expired. In any case, it is contended that the Collector when dismissing the appeal could not, under any provision of law, extend the time for depositing the rent which had become overdue. The view taken by the Financial Commissioner in his order reported in Sham Dass v. Mange and Ors. 1959 L.L.T. 49, was that the period in the notice given u/s 14(A) was prescribed under the statute and this statutory limitation could not be extended by the Court under any powers which might be said to inhere in it or u/s 148 of the CPC which did not apply. The other Financial Commissioner who decided the case reported in Kulu Ram v. Ujagar Singh 1960 L.L.T. 65, expressed the similar view. In this case, the inescapable fact is that the period of one month given by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, had expired on 10th February, 1960, twelve days before the institution of the appeal to the Collector. The Collector was not moved to accept the appeal, but he allowed ten days'' time to deposit the amount,--vide his order, dated 13th June, 1961.

Mr. Harbans Lal Sarin, learned Counsel for the tenant-Petitioner, drew my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Mahanth Ram Das Vs. Ganga Das, . In that case a Bench of a High Court while deciding an appeal in favour of the Appellant had passed peremptory order fixing the period for payment of deficit court-fee. In that case, the Appellant had made an application for extension of time before the time fixed had run out. When the application came up for hearing before a Division Bench after the period had run out, the High Court felt it was powerless to enlarge the time. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not powerless to extend the time even though it had peremptorily fixed the period for payment. Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in terms, allowed extension of time, even if the original period fixed had expired, and Section 149 was equally liberal. The Supreme Court held that a fortiori Section 148 could be invoked by the applicant when the time had not actually expired. An order extending time for payment, though passed after the expiry of the time fixed, could operate from the date on which the time fixed expired. The decision of the Supreme Court does not appear to me to be applicable to the circumstances of this case. In this case the period granted according to form ''N'' was statutory. This period could not be extended by the Court. In other words, it is not open to the Court to extend a period fixed by the Act. To these proceedings, the provisions of Section 148 of the CPC are not attracted. There is no provision in the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act which can come to the assistance of the tenant and empowers the Assistant Collector or the Collector to extend time for payment of the rent which has fallen in arrears. The scope of proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution is very narrow. Even if it be assumed that the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner had committed an error which in my view they had not, this Court, within its narrow ambit under Article 227, cannot disturb such a decision. No error is apparent and it cannot be said that either the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner acted outside the scope of their respective jurisdiction.

For reason stated above, I am not satisfied that petition under Article 227 is competent. I would: therefore, dismiss the petition, but in the circumstances leave the parties to bear their own costs.