Smt. Dhappan vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and Another

G.C. Garg, J.—Som Lal respondent herein filed an application u/s 9(1)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (for short ''the Act'') on Forum ''L'' seeking ejectment of the writ petitioner from land measuring 79 kanals 11 marlas as fully detailed in para 2 of the writ petition, before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Fazilka on the ground that the tenant, the petitioner herein has failed to pay rent for the crops Kharif 1984 to Rabi 1987 without any sufficient cause. Matter was considered by the Assistant Collector and he by his order dated 13th September, 1988, Annexure P.1 came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein was in arrears of rent for the crops Rabi 1985. Kharif 1986 and Rabi 1987 at the time of filing of the ejectment application in Form ''L'' and has not paid the same. He consequently ordered ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent for the crops indicated above, without any sufficient cause. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, the petitioner filed appeal which was disposed of by the Collector, Ferozepur by order dated 23rd May, 1989, Annexure P.2. He came to the conclusion that oral evidence produced by the appellant could not be relied upon and the assistant Collector rightly ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent without sufficient cause. Revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner by order dated 29th January, 1992. Annexure P.3. Learned Commissioner also after appreciating the evidence concurred with the conclusion arrived at by the Assistant Collector. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and he filed revision before the Financial Commissioner. Revision filed before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed by order dated 1st June, 1994, Annexure P.4. The Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that nothing was urged before him to justify any interference in the revision. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the tenant.

In response to the notice of motion, the respondent-landlord has filed written statement. Case of the landlord is that the petitioner has failed to pay ren without any sufficient cause. His further stand is that not only this, the petitione has not paid any rent since Kharif 1987 and as on date, an amount of more than rupees three lac is due from the petitioner to the answering respondent on account of arrears of rent.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the orders of the revenue officers we are of the opinion that this petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is by now the settled law that relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end on the passing of the order of ejectment. The order of ejectment was passed by the Assistant Collector on 13th September, 1988 after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to pay rent for three crops without any sufficient cause. During the course of hearing it was not disputed that rent has not been paid and that the rent/mense profits for the period subsequent thereto, has also not been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner only tried to argue that a part of the land i.e. land measuring 21 Bighas and 13 Biswas out of the land in dispute is recorded to be the ownership of the Punjab Government on account of the same having been declared surplus. This stand was taken by the learned counsel on the strength of entry in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95. He thus, submitted that the petitioner cannot be ordered to be evicted atleast from this part of the land, it having vested in the State Government. Again on a consideration of the matter, we find no merit in this contention. The petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute on the ground that he failed to pay rent without any sufficient cause. If a part of the land has been declared surplus, the petitioner cannot take any advantage thereof and the State Government will take care of that for taking possession or utilisation thereof in accordance with law, if it has actually been declared surplus and the order declaring it surplus has attained finality. As already stated, the petitioner cannot seek any protection from her dispossession on that account. Findings recorded by the authorities are pure findings of fact and based on appreciation of evidence. No illegality could be pointed out therein which may warrant interference. The writ petition is consequently dismissed.