Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 761
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jawahar Lal Gupta and K.S. Garewal, JJ.
Manohar and others - Petitioners
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Haryana - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 19562 of 1998.
Decided On : 19 July, 2000
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Mr. D.P. Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.
For the Respondent No. 5:Mr. L.K. Singhal, Advocate.
The admission of liability by the petitioners and their failure to pay rent, without any prejudice caused, justified the rejection of the writ petition.
Headnote:
Punjab Tenancy Act - Eviction - Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 - No notice in form N of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 issued - Liability admitted by the petitioners - Failure to pay rent - No prejudice caused - Writ petition dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were tenants on the land of respondent No. 5. They did not pay the rent from Rabi 1983 to Rabi 1988. The fifth respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad framed the issues and tried the suit. A finding in favour of the present respondent was returned on all the issues. The petitioners appealed to the Collector. The appeal was partly accepted. The Collector directed the present petitioners to pay the rent as batai tihai on or before 15.4.1996 according to the crop failing which they were to be deemed to have been evicted. The petitioners did not pay and filed revision petitions, which were dismissed. The petitioners approached the Court through the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners had admitted their liability and failed to pay the rent despite undertaking to do so. The Court also held that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioners by the lengthy procedure followed by the authorities. The Court rejected the writ petition and deemed it a fit case for compensating respondent No. 5 by awarding costs.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the tenants to be evicted, the right of the plaintiff to file the suit, the maintainability of the suit, and the effect of not making a party to the suit. The petitioners raised concerns about the suit being filed under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 instead of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the failure to issue a notice in form N of the latter Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners' admission of liability and failure to pay rent, without any prejudice caused by the lengthy procedure followed, justified the rejection of the writ petition. The Court also emphasized that the formality of issuing a notice in a particular form was not required in this case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Court deemed it a fit case for compensating respondent No. 5 by awarding costs, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioners were tenants on the land of respondent No. 5. They did not pay the rent from Rabi 1983 to Rabi 1988. The fifth respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad framed the issues and tried the suit. A finding in favour of the present respondent was returned on all the issues. Aggrieved by the decree, the petitioners appealed to the Collector. The appeal was partly accepted. It was held that the present petitioners should be given time to pay the rent. Consequently, vide order dated February 22, 1996, the Collector directed the present petitioners "to pay the rent as batai tihai on or before 15.4.1996 according to the crop failing which they were to be deemed to have been evicted." A copy of this order is at Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. The petitioners did not pay. They filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. The authority noticed the sequence of events. It took into consideration the fact that "a compromise was effected between (sic) Court to deposit rent upto 15.4.1996." The petitioners (sic) the payment. Thus, the Court held that "such a tenant does not deserve any sympathy and no further opportunity can be given for depositing the rent as decreed by the Collector. In accordance with the condition imposed by the Collector, the tenants are deemed to have been ejected for non-payment of rent." The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. This petition was dismissed in limine. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the officers in the hierarchy of the revenue department, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.
2. In response to the notice of motion, a written statement has been filed by the fifth respondent.
3. Mr. R.K. Jain, counsel for the petitioners has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, it has been contended that the fifth respondent having filed a suit under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and not under the provision of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the impugned orders are vitiated. Secondly, it has been contended that it was incumbent on the Assistant Collector to send a notice to the petitioners in form N of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 calling upon them to deposit the rent. Such a procedure having not been adopted, the impugned action cannot be sustained. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by Mr. L.K. Singhal, counsel for respondent No. 5.
4. So far as the first argument is concerned, it may only be noticed that the Assistant Collector had framed the following issues :
1. "Whether defendants are liable to be ejected ? OPD
2. Whether the plaintiffs has (have) right to file suit ? OPD
3. Whether the suit is maintainable ? OPD
4. Whether Smt. Sunehri widow of Ram Chand is not made a party (sic) what is effect on the suit ? OPD
5. Relief ?"
5. The Assistant Collector had recorded evidence and come to a conclusion that the tenant had not paid rent of Rs. 2717/- i.e. 1/3rd for the crops without any sufficient cause. With regard to issue No. 2, it was found that the tenants (the present petitioners) "are cultivating the land of the petitioner (now respondent No. 5) on batai tihai. Therefore, petitioner, (respondent No. 5) is having all the right to file this case." Even on the other issues, the findings were in favour of the fifth respondent. Therefore, the petitioners had filed an appeal. At that stage, the matter was compromised. The petitioners had undertaken to pay. This was a clear admission of the liability. On this, the Collector had ordered the petitioners "to pay the rent as batai tihai on or before 15.4.1996." Despite admission, the payment was not made. Consequently, the order for eviction passed by the Collector had become enforceable. That being the position the Commissioner and the Financial Commission rejected the revision petitions.
6. In view of t
