Back
1998 Supreme(P&H) 1603
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and M.L.Singhal JJ.
Gian Chand
Versus
Financial Commissioner
Letter Patent Appeal No. 586 of 1993,
Civil Writ Petition No. 9572 of 1987,
Decided On : DECEMBER 22, 1998
A tenant who fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause is liable to be ejected from the land.
Headnote:
PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT, 1953 - SECTION 9(1)(II), 12, 14, 14-A - PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES RULES, 1953 - RULE 9, 10 - PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES RULES, 1956 - RULE 22 - FORM L, M, N, P - EJECTMENT OF TENANT - DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - SCOPE OF CERTIORARI JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - LANDLORD AND TENANT - TENANT'S LIABILITY TO BE EJECTED - REGULAR PAYMENT OF RENT - FAILURE TO PAY RENT REGULARLY WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE - PROCEDURE FOR EJECTMENT AND RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT, ETC. - DUTY OF LAND OWNER TO FURNISH RECEIPT FOR RENT RECEIVED FROM TENANT - APPLICATION BY LANDOWNER UNDER SECTION 14-A(I) FOR THE EJECTMENT OF A TENANT - APPLICATION BY LANDOWNER UNDER SECTION 14-A(II) FOR THE RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT DUE FROM HIS TENANT - NOTICE TO A TENANT, WHO IS IN ARREARS OF RENT, TO DEPOSIT THE RENT, ETC. - NOTICE TO LANDLORD TO ACCEPT THE RENT, ETC. - SUFFICIENCY OF CAUSE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - SCOPE OF CERTIORARI JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, tenants, failed to pay rent to the respondents, landowners, from 1974 to 1983. The landowners filed an application under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (the 1953 Act) for directing the tenants to give 1/3rd of the crop to the applicants or to execute the Qabuliyat Nama for Rs. 500/per acre per year under Rule 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953 (the 1953 Rules). The tenants contested the application and pleaded that the Qabuliyat Nama cannot be executed on the terms set out by the landowners but they were prepared to execute a Qabuliyat Nama at the agreed fixed rent. After considering the evidence of the parties and the statement made by the counsel appearing for the landowners, the Special Collector ordered the tenants to execute a Qabuliyat Nama in favour of the applicants from Rabi 1974 at 1/3rd Batai within three months from the date of his order. The tenants unsuccessfully challenged the order of the Special Collector before the Collector, Kurukshetra, the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The tenants filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 1205 of 1982 which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 16.3.1982. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 3854 of 1982, Vasandha Ram v. State of Haryana, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14.4.1982. After one year and two months of the dismissal of the petition for Special Leave to Appeal, the tenants filed an application under Section 14-A(iii) of the 1953 Act read with Section 31 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 before the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Thanesar and prayed that respondents-Kishan Chand etc. be summoned and they be given Batai and the applicants be given the receipt. They also prayed that if the respondents (Kishan Chand and Ors.) refuse to receive the Batai, it be deposited in the Treasury. That application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Grade-II, Thanesar to whom it has been transferred for adjudication. In the meanwhile, the respondents Kishan Chand ant others filed an application under Rule 22 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (the 1956 Rules) read with Section 14-A(i) of the 1953 Act as amended by Punjab Act No. XI of 1955 for ejectment of the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent for Rabi 1983 without any sufficient cause and the Batai for the earlier crops. The tenants challenged the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Grade-II, Thanesar, the Collector, Kurukshetra, and the Financial Commissioner respectively, in Civil Writ Petition No. 9572 of 1987 and 4271 of 1986. The learned Single Judge (J.L. Gupta, J.) rejected both the contentions and dismissed the writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the tenants had failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of rent and that the landowners were entitled to eject them. The Court also held that the landowners were not required to avail the remedy under Sections 17 and 18 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, as those provisions were not an alternative remedy for seeking ejectment of the defaulting tenant.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenants had shown sufficient cause for non-payment of rent? 2. Whether the landowners were required to avail the remedy under Sections 17 and 18 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the tenants had failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of rent. The Court noted that the tenants had not paid any rent since 1974, and that they had not offered any cogent reason for their failure to pay rent. The Court also noted that the tenants had not challenged the order of the Assistant Collector Grade-II, Thanesar, dismissing their application for deposit of rent, and that they had not paid rent even after the order was upheld by the Collector, the Financial Commissioner, and the learned Single Judge. 2. The Court held that the landowners were not required to avail the remedy under Sections 17 and 18 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The Court noted that those provisions were not an alternative remedy for seeking ejectment of the defaulting tenant.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the tenants.
G.S.Singhvi, J.
1. By this order, we are disposing of two Letters Patent Appeals filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.6.1993 dismissing Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9572 of 1987 and 4271 of 1986 filed by the appellants. L.P.A. No. 586/93:
2. Agricultural land measuring 120 kanals 9 marlas situated in Village Darra Khurd, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was leased out by the predecessors of the private respondents Kishan Chand and others to Shri Vasandha Ram (father of the appellants Gian Chand, Des Raj and Has Raj) and another on fixed rent of Rs. 800/- per annum along with 2.1/2 maunds of fruit. On 10.6.1974, the land owners filed an application under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short the 1953 Act) for directing the tenants to give 1/3rd of the crop to the applicants or to execute the Qabuliyat Nama for Rs. 500/per acre per year under Rule 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Rules) in Form C appended thereto. That application was contested by the tenants who pleaded that the Qabuliyat Nama cannot be executed on the terms set out by the land owners but they were prepared to execute a Qabuliyat Nama at the agreed fixed rent. After considering the evidence of the parties and the statement made by the counsel appearing for the land owners, the Special Collector ordered the tenants to execute a Qabuliyat Nama in favour of the applicants from Rabi 1974 at 1/3rd Batai within three months from the date of his order. He also ordered that 1/3rd Batai shall be fixed according to Section 9 of the Act read with Rule 9 of the 1953 Rules. After unsuccessfully challenging the order of the Special Collector before the Collector, Kurukshetra, the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal and the revision filed by them. Vasandha Ram and the other tenants filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1205 of 1982 which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 16.3.1982. Paragraph 5 of the order passed by the Division Bench (reported in 1982 P.L.J. 453) reads as under:-
"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."
3. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No. 3854 of 1982, Vasandha Ram v. State of Haryana, was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 14.4.1982.
4. After one year and two months of the dismissal of the petition for Special Leave to Appeal, Vasandha Ram and his sons Des Raj filed an application under Section 14-A(iii) of the 1953 Act read with Section 31 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 before the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Thanesar and prayed that respondents-Kishan Chand etc. be summoned and they be given Batai and the applicants be given the receipt. They also prayed that if the respondents (Kishan Chand and Ors.) refuse to receive the Batai, it be deposited in the Treasury. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application, the tenants made the following averments
