Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Nath vs The Financial Comm. And Ors. on 11 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1995)109PLR359
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The landlord who had failed to eject the tenant up to the highest revenue Court, has approached this Court through the present writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.
2. Smt. Krishni, original landowner initiated proceedings for the eviction of Surja; a tenant. On June 14, 1971, the application was dismissed on the ground that she had failed to produce evidence in spite of the grant of the various opportunities. She filed another application alleging that the tenant had failed to pay rent for the crops from Kharif 1965 to Rabi 1971 without sufficient cause. Initially, this application was dismissed for default. It was subsequently restored. On October 21, 1976, the Assistant Collector accepted the application and ordered the ejectment of the respondent tenant. In the meantime, he (the tenant) had filed an application dated September 11, 1974 under Section 14-A (iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for payment of rent. Before this application could be decided, he filed an appeal challenging the order of ejectment passed by Assistant Collector before the Collector. The case was remanded vide order dated December 21, 1976, for fresh decision in view of the pendency of the application for payment of rent. On April 15, 1977, the Assistant Collector dismissed the application dated September 11, 1974. On May 13, 1977, the Assistant Collector ordered the ejectment of the tenant. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. It appears that Smt. Krishni died. Her estate was then represented by her adopted son Amar Nath, the present petitioner. The tenant appealed to Collector. It was accepted vide order dated November 24, 1977. The case was remanded to the Collector. On January 18,1978, the tenant filed another application under Section 14-A (iii) for deposit of Rs. 859-93 paise towards rent. On December 14, 1978, the Collector dismissed the application for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that 'the appellant tenant had deposited the amount of 'batai' for Rabi 1969 to Rabi 1970 and Kharif 1970 to Rabi 1977 in the Govt. Treasury' vide receipts dated January 14,1978 and January 11,1978. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P-4. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on November 11, 1980 vide order at Annexure P-5. His revision petition also met the same fate and it was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on August 26, 1981. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-6. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The impugned orders have been challenged on various grounds which will be presently noticed.
3. It appears that during the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent-tenant expired. Consequently, his legal heirs were impleaded. The reply to the writ petition has been filed by his son Sewa Ram. In this affidavit, it has been inter alia averred that the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the revenue authorities cannot be interfered with by this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further pointed out that Smt. Krishni Devi owned 102 standard acres of land out of which 72 standard acres were declared surplus. However, she has managed to get most of her tenants ejected. It has been further averred that the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest 'never' issued any receipt and when the respondent smelt foul play, he submitted an application to the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, Karnal, under Section 14-A (iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act for payment of rent batai of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest......But they avoided the service of notice for years together. Rather they managed to get the application misplaced on account of their influence to make it impossible for the answering respondent to deposit the rent in Court. The respondent avers that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and his conduct is contumacious. It is further averred that 'non-payment of rent was a sufficient cause-'. Reference has also been made to the proceedings before the civil Court where collusive decree was obtained 'so that the respondent may not be able to know the person entitled to (receive) the rent.' It has also been averred that the respondent has filed an application under Section 14-A(iii) of the Act. A copy of the application dated September 14, 1970 has been produced as Annexure R-7. On merits, the claim of the petitioner has been controverted by the respondent and it has been prayed that the petition may be dismissed with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. C.B. Goel, appearing for the petitioner has contended that the tenant having failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause, was liable to be ejected and that on the basis of the evidence on record, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant has submitted with equal vehemence that the landowner had initially avoided to receive rent with the oblique objective of evicting the respondent and as such no interference was called for in the circumstances of the case.
5. The Act was promulgated to 'provide for the security of land tenures and other incidental matters.' Broadly, the Act takes away the right of a landowner to own land beyond the permissible area. It grants protection to the tenant. He can be ejected only on specified grounds which are enumerated in Section 9. One of these grounds arises when the tenant 'fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause'. Under the Act, the maximum rent payable by a tenant for any kind of land held by him cannot exceed 1/3rd of the crops or the value thereof as determined in the prescribed manner. The provision enjoins upon the tenant to pay rent regularly. The explanation in Section 9 indicates that the tenant must pay the rent 'within a period of 2 months'. His failure to do so without sufficient cause attracts the penalty of ejectment. As held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in Mrs. Raj Kanta. v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and Anr., A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1464. The Act is heavily loaded in favour of the rights of the tenants so as to confer on them several important benefits and privileges (yet) as the Act is confiscatory in nature, so far as the landlord is concerned it should be strictly construed within the limited sphere inasmuch as the landlord is conferred limited grounds on which ejectment is permissible under Section 9 which appears to be safety valve for the limited rights that are left with the landlord under the Act. It has been further held that 'the language employed in the various clauses of Section 9 has to be construed so as to give real benefit to the landlord within the limited range that the Section operates.' Thus, whenever the tenant fails to pay rent without sufficient cause, the landlord become entitled to eject him.
6. What is the position in the present case? The sequence of events as noticed above clearly shows that the tenant had paid the rent from Rabi 1969 to Rabi 1970 on January 14, 1978 and for the period from Kharif 1970 to Rabi 1977 on January 1,1978. In fact, the Collector vide his order dated December 14, 1978, a copy of which is on record as Annexure P-4 clearly notices this factual position. It is thus clear that the tenant had not committed merely one or two defaults. He had failed to pay rent continuously for a number of years. Still further, it also deserves notice that the land-owner had alleged default from Kharif 1965 to Rabi 1971. It is true that the application for the ejectment of the respondent tenant on account of his failure to pay rent from Kharif 1965 to Kharif 1968 had been dismissed as the landowner had not led evidence. Yet nothing has been produced by the respondent to show that the rent had been actually paid. In fact, the deposit of rent in January, 1978, by the tenant is a clear acknowledgment of the fact that it had not been paid at least from Rabi 1969 to Rabi 1977. In fact, even the different authorities have noticed the default of the respondent. The Collector in his order dated June 13, 1977. (Annexure P-2) has categorically observed that "this fact can also not be left unnoticed that arrears of produce/rent (Batai) are due against the tenant for a very long time and that he has not taken any proceedings for the payment of Batai for some crops. Similarly, regarding the latter crops, he filed an application on 3.3.77 after so many years. Thereafter, the Commissioner in his order dated November 24,1977 (Annexure P-3) has categorically observed that 'there is no dispute on this point that the respondent has not paid the Batai of the crops mentioned in the application of the landowner'. These proceedings clearly establish that the respondent had not paid rent regularly. Still further, there is 'nothing on record to show that he had any cause much less than a sufficient cause for the series of defaults committed by him. And yet, in spite of the finding recorded by the Revenue authorities the petitioner's claim was rejected by the Collector. When he filed an appeal before the Commissioner, the claim was rejected on the ground that the landowner has never taken any action for the recovery of Batai-----'. This was clearly wrong. The tenant is under a duty to pay the rent regularly. His failure to do so entitled the landowner to seek his eviction. He can avoid this penalty only when he shows sufficient cause. It has not been shown that he had any cause.
7. Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent was at pains to point out that the poor tenant had filed various applications under Section 14(A) (iii), which shows that he was willing to deposit the rent. A copy of one such application dated September 14, 1970, has been produced as Annexure R-7 with the written statement. Another application was alleged to have been filed on September 11, 1974. A perusal of the application dated September 14, 1970, shows that the rent was due for the crops of Rabi 1969 to Rabi 1970. Firstly, no order which may have been passed on this application has been produced. Secondly, the record clearly shows that the respondent had paid the rent from Rabi 1969 to Rabi 1977 only in January, 1978. The Act requires the tenant to pay the rent regularly. Even if it is assumed that the tenant had filed one or more applications for the payment of rent, he cannot avoid the consequence of his failure to pay the rent regularly. Furthermore, the explanation in the application that the landlord had refused to accept the rent by issuing a receipt, does not appear to be entirely convincing. If the landlord had actually refused to accept the rent, the tenant could have sent it by money order. He could have also produced some other evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent had offered rent for every crop and that the landlord had refused to accept it. On the admitted facts, on sufficient cause for failure to pay rent regularly can be said to have been made out. Under the law, a single default attracts the penalty of eviction. In the present case, there have been a series of defaults. Consequently, the plea raised on behalf of the respondent cannot be sustained.
8. Another fact which deserves notice is that the Commissioner while rejecting the petitioner's claim has observed that "the landowner has never taken any action for recovery of Batai. This is a clearly erroneous view. It is for the tenant to pay. Once a default occurs, the landowner has as an option. He can sue for recovery of rent or claim the eviction of the tenant. His claim for eviction cannot be defeated on the ground that he did not sue for recovery. The Act requires the tenant to pay regularly. His failure to do so attracts the consequence of eviction. The option exercisable by landowner does not give any right to the tenants.
9. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities cannot be sustained. These are consequently quashed. It is held that the respondent-landowner Surja and now his legal representatives who were impleaded vide order dated March 11,1982 are liable to be ejected.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-tenant was at pains to point out that the petitioner had no right to the land as it had been declared surplus. This is a matter for the revenue authorities to consider. It is not the subject matter of the writ petition.
No other point was urged.
11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. It is held that the respondent was liable to be ejected in view of the provisions of rules 9(i)(ii) of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.