SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(P&H) 17

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.Falshaw and D.K.Mahajan JJ.
Balwant Singh Dharam Singh
Versus
Sodhi Lal Singh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 281 of 1963,
Decided On : JANUARY 18, 1966

A tenant is not liable to ejectment for non-payment of rent within 30 days of receiving the demand notice if he tenders the rent due within 30 days of the determination of the rent by the Assistant Collector.

Headnote:

PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT, 1953 - SECTION 14-A (II) - INTERPRETATION - TENANT'S OBLIGATION TO PAY RENT - DETERMINATION OF RENT BY ASSISTANT COLLECTOR - TIME LIMIT FOR DEPOSIT OF RENT - EXTENSION OF TIME - JURISDICTION OF ASSISTANT COLLECTOR.

Fact of the Case:

A tenant, Balwant Singh, disputed the amount of rent demanded by his landlord, Sodhi Lal Singh, under Section 14-A (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Assistant Collector determined the rent due as Rs. 605, which was tendered by the tenant but not accepted by the landlord. The landlord appealed to the Collector and then to the Commissioner, who recommended ejectment of the tenant for non-payment of rent within 30 days of receiving the demand notice. The Financial Commissioner accepted the recommendation and dismissed the tenant's writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the tenant was not liable to ejectment as he had tendered the rent due within 30 days of the determination of the rent by the Assistant Collector. The court interpreted Section 14-A (ii) of the Act to mean that where the amount demanded by the landlord is in excess of the amount due, there is no obligation of the tenant to pay the amount which he admits to be due before the matter has been determined by the Assistant Collector.

Issues: 1. Whether the tenant was liable to ejectment for non-payment of rent within 30 days of receiving the demand notice. 2. Whether the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the rent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant was not liable to ejectment as he had tendered the rent due within 30 days of the determination of the rent by the Assistant Collector. The court interpreted Section 14-A (ii) of the Act to mean that where the amount demanded by the landlord is in excess of the amount due, there is no obligation of the tenant to pay the amount which he admits to be due before the matter has been determined by the Assistant Collector. The court also held that the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the rent.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner, and directed the landlord to accept the rent tendered by the tenant.

Judgment

D.Falshaw, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by Balwant Singh under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of Harbans Singh, J., dismissing his petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. The facts are not in dispute. Sodhi Lal Singh respondent applied to the Assistant Collector, Second Grade. Moga, under Section 14-A (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for the recovery of Rs. 900 from Balwant Singh appellant as the tenant of certain land for the harvests of kharif 1959 and rabi 1960 and a notice of demand in the prescribed form N was issued to Balwant Singh and served on him on the 6th of November 1960. He disputed the correctness of the amount demanded and claimed that only a sum of Rs. 605 was due, the annual rent of the land, which was 88 kanals or 11 acres in extent, being Rs. 55 per acre. By his order, dated the 30th of December 1960 the Assistant Collector held that the rent due was in fact Rs. 605 and in his order he recorded the fact that the amount was tendered to the landlord by the tenant. He directed the landlord to accept the amount tendered on issuing a receipt or alternatively the tenant was directed to deposit the amount in Court. It appears that the landlord did not accept the tender made on the 30th of December 1960 and the amount was deposited in the treasury at Moga on the 2nd of January 1961 the two intervening days--the 31st of December 1960 and the 1st of January 1961 -- being holidays.

3. The landlord appealed to the Collector, who by his order dated the 14th of April 1961 upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. The landlord then went in revision to the Commissioner, who by his order dated the 4th of July 1962 took the view that the tenant was liable to ejectment because he had not paid the amount admittedly due from him within thirty days of the receipt by him of the notice in form N (the 6th of November 1960) and he accordingly recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the orders of the Collector and the Assistant Collector should be set aside. His recommendation was accepted by the learned Financial Commissioner by his order dated the 11th of October 1962.

4. On the writ petition of Balwant Singh the learned Single Judge refused to interfere on the grounds that certain observations by a learned Financial Commissioner in the case reported as 1960-39 Lah LT 65, to the effect that where there is a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding the amount of rent due the tenant can pay the amount arrived at by the Assistant Collector within thirty days from the determination of the rent by him, were merely obiter and that in any case the proper remedy for the tenant was to approach the Financial Commissioner for the review of his order.

5. In my opinion there can be no doubt that a wrong view of the law has been taken by the learned Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner in this case. Section 14-A (ii) of the Act reads:

"A land-owner 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 that the landlord refused to receive the same or to give a receipt, within the period specified in the notice. Where, after summary determination, as provided for in Sub-section (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 land-owner in possession of the land concerned." The relevant portion of the demand notice in form N reads-- "You are now required, within a month of the receipt of this notice, to (1) deposit the rent or the value thereof (if rent payable in kind) in this Court; or

(2) g







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top