Joginder Singh vs Financial Commissioner, Punjab

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

Respondentlandlord filed an application under Section 14A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he had not paid rent from Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1986 without any sufficient cause. The petitioner controverted the claim of the respondentlandlord on the ground that he had actually paid the rent. He relied on a receipt dated August 2, 1986 to show that an amount of Rs. 4,650/ had been actually paid. The Assistant Collector found that the contention raised by the petitioner could not be accepted as the said receipt did not mention that the payment had been made on account of the rent of the land. He, consequently ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector vide his order dated March 26, 1992. The petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated August 5, 1992. His revision before the Financial Commissioner also met with the same fate. Copies of these orders have been produced as Annexures P2 to P5 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The impugned orders have been challenged primarily on the ground that in view of the receipt which had been allegedly issued by the father of respondent No. 2, the finding recorded by the courts below cannot be sustained.

In response to the notice of motion a written statement has been filed by respondent No. 2. It has been submitted that the copy of the receipt produced by the petitioner as Annexure P1 does not represent the correct translation of the actual receipt which was written in Punjabi. It has been further pointed out that the payment had been made by the petitioner to the respondentlandlord towards the rent. In fact it was settlement of account by the petitioner with M/s Jossan Trading Company, Jalalabad. The respondent has also quoted an extract from the statement of the petitioner wherein it was admitted by him that he had stopped his dealings with the father of the respondent in the year 1983. Extract from the account book of the firm''s record has also been produced to show that the amount of Rs. 4,650/ had been paid in lieu of the amount which was actually due to the firm on account of the different advances given to the petitioner during the year 1983. The respondent has also produced a copy of the order dated August 25, 1983 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade in a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4,379.44 filed by the respondentlandlord against the petitioner. The obvious purpose is to show that it had been established before the Assistant Collector that the petitioner had not paid the rent for the land which was in his possession. This order was upheld in appeal by the Collector. On these premises, the respondent prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

We have heard Mr. Vikas Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. Prem Nath Aggarwal, for the respondent. The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that on a persual of the receipt, it is clear that the amount had been actually paid by the petitioner and that the order of ejectment passed against him cannot be sustained. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Mr. Aggarwal that the plea having been negatived by all the revenue courts and it having been conclusively established that the petitioner had not paid the rent, the impugned orders deserve to be upheld.

On a persual of the record, we find that a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by all the courts that the petitioner had failed to give the share of the produce for the crops from Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1986. It has also been noticed by the courts that a decree dated August 25, 1988 had been passed against the petitioner in which it has been found that he owed an amount of Rs. 4,379.44 on account of arrears of rent. With regard to the receipt, the revenue courts have found that it is not related to the payment of the share of the crop. Nothing has been pointed out to show that these findings are against the evidence on record. It has also not been pointed out that any evidence produced by the petitioner has not been considered by the authorities under the Act.

In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

Even though we have heard learned counsel as if we were hearing an appeal, yet the fact remains that it is only a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reappraisal of evidence is normally not the function of the writ court. We are satisfied that no injustice has been caused to the petitioner which may call for any intervention.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.