Sunder Lal (died) by L.Rs. vs Financial Commissioner, Haryana

J.M. Tandon, J.

Ishar Kaur respondent owns land which is in occupation of Sunder Singh (now deceased) and his brother Gurdit Singh petitioners as tenants. The respondents filed two applications on form N under section 14 A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act (hereafter the Act) against Sunder Singh and Gurdit Singh. Notice on form N was issued to Sunder Singh on December 24, 1975 and Gurdit Singh on January 9, 1976. The amount of rent claimed from Sunder Singh was Rs. 642.81 and from Gurdit Singh Rs. 151.58. Sunder Singh appeared before the Assistant Collector on January 23, 1976 and Gurdit Singh on February 9, 1976. They did not deposit the rent claimed from them within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. They, however, filed written statements raising pleas that the amount of Batai claimed is excessive and the Goshward has not been correctly prepared. The Assistant Collector vide order dated May 7, 1976, held that Sunder Singh was liable to pay Rs. 642.81 to Ishar Kaur respondent. Gurdit Singh was also held liable to pay Rs. 151.58 to Ishar Kaur respondent by a separate order of April 28, 1976. Both the tenants were allowed one month''s time to pay the amount of Batai to the landlady. Ishar Kaur respondent assailed the orders of the Assistant Collector in appeal alleging that the tenants should have been ordered to be ejected on account of their failure to pay the Batai within one month of the receipt of notices on form N. The Collector, Ambala, vide order dated December 15, 1976, accepted the appeals of the landlady and ordered the ejectment of the tenants. The petitioners assailed the order of the Collector in appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated June 26, 1977. The petitioners then filed revision before the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed on August 7, 1978. The petitioners have assailed the adverse orders passed against them in the present writ.

The relevant part of section 14A of the Act reads:

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and subject to the provisions of section 9A

(i) ... ... ... ...;

(ii) 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 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 for in subsection (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 ... ... ....."

The petitioners after receipt of notice on form N appeared before the Assistant Collector on January 23, 1976 and February 9, 1976, respectively. The amount of rent claimed by the landlady from them was not paid by the petitioners within the stipulated period of 30 days. The Assistant Collector vide orders dated My 7, 1976 and April 28, 1976 respectively allowed the petitioners to pay the amount of rent claimed by the landlady within one month. The orders of the Assistant Collector allowing the petitioners to deposit the amount of rent within one month were illegal and bad and were rightly set aside in appeal. It has been held in Gurmej Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, 1981 R.L.R. 45, that under section 14 A (ii), the Assistant Collector has been given only the power to make enquiry into the objections which may be raised by the tenant with regard to the non liability to pay the arrears of rent whether wholly or partly but he has no jurisdiction to grant any further time if the tenants'' contention is not upheld. The ratio of this authority is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. It was incumbent for the Assistant Collector to have ordered the ejectment of the petitioners after recording a finding that they were liable to pay the amount of rent claimed by the landlady when the same had not been paid within 30 days of the receipt of the notice on form N.

The petitioners had filed applications for the purchase of the land in their occupation on October 22, 1971, which were dismissed on January 31, 1977. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the appeals filed by the petitioners against the orders dated January 31, 1977, were dismissed by the Collector Ambala vide order dated October 9, 1978. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Assistant Collector had erred in passing the order P.1 on May 7, 1976. The proper course for the Assistant Collector to follow was to have decided the ejectment applications filed by Ishar Kaur respondent against the petitioners and the purchase applications filed by the petitioners of the land under tenancy simultaneously. The impugned orders are, therefore, liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on Shrimati Dhan Kaur v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others, 1970 PLJ 370 and 664. The contention is without merit.

The petitioners have not assailed the order passed by the Assistant Collector dated May 7, 1976. (P.1) in the present writ. In fact, the petitioners were satisfied with this order alleging therein to deposit the amount of rent payable to Ishar Kaur within one month. The petitioners, therefore, cannot raise any objection relating to the legality or propriety of the order P.1. This apart, the Assistant Collector was competent to order the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of nonpayment of rent within the stipulated period to the landlady. The fact of the matter is that the Assistant Collector after having found that the petitioners were liable to pay arrears of rent which they had not paid within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice on form N was bound to order the ejectment of the petitioners. The nondisposal of the ejectment application of the petitioners for the purchase of the land on May 7, 1976, therefore, does not adversely affect the legality or propriety of the order P.1. It may also be noted that the petitioners had finally lost their claim for the purchase of the land with the dismissal of their appeal on October 9, 1978, by Collector Ambala against the order of the Assistant Collector dated January 31, 1977, rejecting their claim for purchase. Under these circumstances, the petitioners can hardly press the ratio of Shrimati Dhan Kaur''s case (supra) to their advantage.

In view of discussion above, the petitioners cannot justifiably assail the impugned orders.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.