JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J.:—These appeals by certificate are directed against a common judgment dated February 5, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which a Letters Patent Appeal against a decision of the single Judge was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and all the appeals involve a short point of law relating to the interpretation of S. 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The history of the case has been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same. Shorn of unnecessary details the appeals arose out of applications made by Pera Ram, Ganga Ram, Bhago and Kalu Ram who were the tenants of agricultural land owned by Mrs. Raj Kanta, the appellant in these appeals. The tenants made separate applications under S. 18 of the Act on September 4, 1961 for purchasing the land held by them from Mrs. Raj Kanta (hereinafter called the land owner). These applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector on October 31, 1961. Accordingly, the tenants deposited the first instalment in November 1961. Ultimately, however, the tenants did not pay the rent of the respective holdings for Kharif 1961. It is common ground that the last date by which the rent for Kharif 1961 was payable by the tenants to the land owner was January 15, 1962 and that the tenant did not pay the rent and did not show sufficient cause for the same. In view of the default, the landowner filed separate applications under S. 9 (1) (ii) of the Act on the ground that as the tenants had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause, they were entitled to be ejected by the land owner. The applications for ejectment were, however, dismissed but on appeal the Collector allowed the appeals by his order dated May 31, 1962. Second appeals preferred by the tenants in the ejectment proceedings were dismissed by an order dated 5-11-62 of the Commissioner and ultimately upheld by the Financial Commissioner by his order dated December 21, 1962.

3. Having failed before the Revenue Courts, the tenants-respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court which was heard by a single Judge. But in the case of Kalu Ram the Financial Commissioner allowed the petition and rejected the prayer for his ejectment by the land owner as a result of which the land owner filed a writ petition in the High Court. All the petitions were consolidated and heard together, by the single Judge who allowed the writ petition of the tenants and quashed the order of the Financial Commissioner directing ejectment of the tenants. The writ petition of the land owner against Kalu Ram was, however, dismissed. Hence, the four appeals by the land owner-appellant in this Court.

4. The only point that has been canvassed before us is as to whether or not the High Court was right in interpreting S. 9 of the Act by holding that the term regularly used in S. 9 (1) (ii) would not include a single default. While the Revenue Courts had held that the mere fact that the tenants made a single default in payment for the rent for Kharif 1961 was sufficient to attract the penalty of ejectment envisaged by S. 9 (1) (ii) of the Act, the High Court took the view that on a proper interpretation of the term regularly it will appear that the legislature did not contemplate that ejectment should be ordered straightway even if a single default, though unexplained, is committed by the tenant which interpretation would run against the avowed object of the legislation which was to advance and ameliorate the lot of the tenants. The High Court had considered the matter at very great length and placed a very wide interpretation on the term regularly so as not to include within its ambit one single default. It has also referred to a number of authorities and Dictionaries to show that the word regularly does not mean absolute symmetry. Having gone through the reasons given by the High Court we are unable to a