The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, specifically section 12, and the finding that the determination of the rate of rent is inherent in the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.

S.C.Mital and S.S.Kang JJ.

1. The petitioners are tenants under Som Nath and others, private-respondents to this writ petition. The land-owners filed a petition on June 10, 1974, under section 9(1)(vii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short `the Act). They prayed that the petitioner-tenants be summoned and ordered that they should give one-third part of the crop to the applicants-landlords or to execute a Qabuliyat Nama for Rs. 500/- per acre per year under Rule 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules (for short `the Rules) on Form `C appended thereto.

2. In reply to a notice issued to them the petitioners appeared and contested this application. They contended that such a Qabuliyat Nama could not be got executed and they were prepared to execute a Qabuliyat Nama at the agreed fixed rent.

3. After the recording of the evidence, the learned counsel for the private- respondents/land-owners gave a statement that he gave up the prayer for lease of Rs. 500/- per acre which he had taken in the petition. He prayed that the Qabuliyat Nama be got executed at the rate of one-third batai. This prayer was accepted. On the basis of evidence, the Special Collector came to the conclusion that the customary rent in the area was one-third batai. He ordered that the tenants shall execute a Qabuliyat Nama in favour of the applicants from Rabi 1974 at one-third batai within three months from the date of this order. It was ordered that this one-third batai shall be fixed according to section 9 of the Act, read with Rule 9 of the Rules. The appeal of the petitioners against this order was dismissed by the Collector, Kurukshetra. Revisions to the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner also met the same fate and were dismissed.

4. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Special Collector had no jurisdiction to get the Qabuliyat Nama executed at one-third batai. We have not been impressed by this argument. In form `C which is prescribed for execution of Qabuliyat Nama, the quantum of rent has to be mentioned. Under section 12 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act the land-owner can recover one-third batai, or the rent customary in the area whichever is less. So the Qabuliyat Nama cannot be for more than the rent provided under section 12 of the Act. In the present case the Qabuliyat Nama is fully in accordance with the provisions of the section 12 of the Act. The Special Collector has given a finding of fact which has been affirmed by the superior authorities that the customary rent was one-third batai.

5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in proceedings under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act, the Collector can only order the tenant to execute a Qabuliyat Nama without denoting the rate of rent; that this Qabuliyat Nama has to clearly mention that the rate of rent shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Act which will be determined in separate proceedings, has not commended itself to us. The determination of rate of rent on which the Qabuliyat Nama has to be executed is inherent in the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Unless the amount of rent is determined, the Special Collector cannot ask the tenant to execute the Qabuliyat Nama at an appropriate rate of rent. In the absence of the mention of the rate of rent, the purpose of execution of the Qabuliyat Nama will be frustrated. To require the parties to file separate proceedings for execution of the Qabuliyat Nama, and for determining the rent which is to be paid by the tenant will be clearly against the public policy. Multiplicity of the proceedings has to be eschewed.

6. The decision of this Court in Radhey Lal v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, Review Application No. 42 of 1965 in Civil Miscellaneous No. 3763 of 1963, decided on March 11, 1970 and Ram Nath v. Suresh Chand, 1979 P.L.J. 239, are not helpful to the learned counsel for the petitioners.