Mange Ram and Others vs Financial Commissioner and Others

N.K. Aggarwal, J.—This is a petition by 8 persons under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the orders dated 26.7.1995 and 4.11.1996 passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively.

The case, as put forward by the petitioners, is that the land measuring 40 kanals 16 Marias belonged to one Chotto Devi and it was under cultivation of her tenant Hargopal. The rate of rent paid by Hargopal to Chotto Devi was 1/2 Batai''. Chotto Devi died in the year 1988. Ownership of the land passed to the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest under her registered will. Mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners.

An application for ejectment was filed on form ''L'' on account of non-payment of rent from Kharif 1988 to Rabi 1991 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, the ''Act'') against the tenant Hargopal. The said Hargopal admitted the non-payment of rent but took the plea that the petitioners were not the owners of the land in question and that he had sufficient cause for the non-payment of rent which was in excess of the statutory limit. After the death of Hargopal in 1992, the private respondent Nos.5 to 12 were impleaded as his legal representatives. The Assistant Collector ordered his ejectment on 31.3.1994. Appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Collector on 5.9.1994. The Commissioner, however, recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the revision petition, filed by the respondents, may be accepted. The Financial Commissioner, by order dated 4.11.1996, allowed the revision petition of the respondents.

The petitioners'' plea is that they had taken the possession of land on 12.10.1994, ejecting the private respondents from the land in pursuance of the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector. After the revision petition filed by the respondents, was allowed by the Financial Commissioner on 4.11.1996, they are likely to be dispossessed. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner with the plea that the latter wrongly took a different view in the matter.

The private respondent Nos.5 to 12 have, in the reply, defended the order of the Financial Commissioner with the plea that the demand of one-half of the produce as rent from Kharif 1988 to Rabi 1991 was wrong. No notice was given to the tenants in form ''N'' requiring them to pay the arrears of rent. The private respondents have claimed that they were ready and willing to pay one-third share of the produce. Ejectment could be ordered u/s 14-A(i) of the Act only if the tenant failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause. In the present case, the demand made by the petitioners was excessive. The private respondents had, therefore, sufficient cause not to pay the rent. The petitioners'' demand of 1/2 share of the crops was unjustified and illegal. Refusal by the respondents to pay 1/2 share of the crops as rent was thus not without sufficient cause.

On a consideration of the controversy arising from the rival contentions, it is noticed that the Financial Commissioner, while deciding the revision petition, placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Balwant Singh v. Sodhi Lal Singh (1966) 68 P.L.R. 380. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the said decision had already been overruled by a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Gurmej Singh and Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and Ors. (1980) 83 P.L.R. 168 . It is, therefore, argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the Financial Commissioner was not sustainable inasmuch as a wrong view was taken by him in the matter. It was held by the Full Bench of this Court that the tenant was bound to deposit at least the admitted rent within the notice period otherwise ejectment would follow. It is further argued that application against Hargopal was filed u/s 14-A(i) of the Act, which did not invest any opportunity to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent after the filing of the application. The question which had arisen in the instant case was whether the tenant had shown sufficient cause for the non-payment of rent.

It is found that the tenants took the view that the landlords were demanding one-half share of the ''batai'' instead of one-third share and, therefore, ''batai'' was not payable until the issue was settled.

The petitioners'' plea is that the tenants were not justified in not paying any rent until the rent was determined. The tenant should have offered one-third ''Batai'' which was payable according to their own admission.

Since, the Financial Commissioner has placed reliance on an overruled decision and passed a non-speaking order, the order of the Financial Commissioner, dated 4.11.1996, is liable to be set aside. The Financial Commissioner did not consider if the respondents (tenants) were required to pay or deposit the admitted ''Batai'' to the extent of l/3rd of the crops even if the petitioners filed an application claiming 1/2 ''batai''. It was also not examined if the case did fall u/s 14A(i) and, if so, what was the liability on the part of the tenants regarding the payment of the arrears of rent.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 4.11.1996, passed by the Financial Commissioner, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner for deciding it afresh according to law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 7th July, 1998.