The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the petition filed under the 1953 Act, the authority of the Mohtamim to file the petition, and the legality of the direction to enhance rent and execute Qabuliyat Nama.

1. All the afore-mentioned writ petitions are connected and relate to the same issue of validity of the order passed by the authorities constituted under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short "1953 Act'). Petitions under Section 9(1)(vii) of the 1953 Act' have been filed by respondent- No. 5 i.e. Mandir Mosamma Baldev Sahai Hari Parshad Damla through its Mohtmim Anand Parkash before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jagadhari claiming itself to be the landlord and seeking ejectment of the petitioners in those petitions. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been admitted. The dispute has arisen with regard to Qabuliyat Nama and enhancement of the rent which is required to be shown under Section 9(1)(vii) of the "1953 Act'. The leases had commenced in the year 1952 and Chakota was fixed @ Rs. 22/- per acre per month. Chakota was received by Hari Parshad during his life-time and thereafter, Mohtmim Anand Parkash filed a civil suit in the year 1982. The contention of landlord was that amount was grossly low, inequitable and that the batai rate is not less than 1/3rd share. It should be fixed as such and on the failure to execute lease deed for the said rent, they should be ordered to be evicted in the manner contemplated under the relevant provisions of the "1953 Act'. The Assistant Collector-Ist Grade, Jagadhri after considering the evidence on record directed the tenants to execute Qabuliyat Nama @ 1/3rd of batai in favour of owner within three months failing which tenants would be ejected. The said order was affirmed by the successive authorities including the Collector, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner i.e. adjudicatory authorities under the 1953 Act'. These orders are challenged in the writ petitions at the instance of all the tenants.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that application under Section 9(1)(vii) of the 1953 Act' was not filed by an authorized person. Anand Parkash is not the Mohtamim of the Mandir. Learned counsel further contends that Anand Parkash is one of the trustees and a single trustee cannot file petition for eviction. Moreover, his interests are adverse to the Mandir. Learned counsel further contends that direction to enhance the rent from Rs. 22/- which was fixed as Chakota, and determine it @ 1/3rd batai in proceeding under Section 9 of the 1953 Act' is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel further contends that under Section 9(1)(vii) of the 1953 Act', only eviction can be ordered, but no direction can be issued to execute a fresh Qabuliyat Nama by enhancing the rent. Learned counsel further contends that the provisions contained in Section 9(1)(vii) of the 1953 Act' provide only for eviction on refusal by the tenants to execute the Qabuliyat Nama and make no provision for determination of rent. Learned counsel further contends that Section 22 of the Punjab Tenancy Act provides for enhancement of cash rents of occupancy tenants and procedure for this is provided in Section 24 of the Punjab Tenancy Act whereunder a suit lies before the revenue court. Section 77(2)(a) of the Punjab Tenancy Act as a "first group" tenant for enhancement or reduction of rent and without following the aforesaid procedure, a summary proceeding under the 1953 Act' cannot be initiated.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 5 support the impugned orders and contend that under the provisions of the 1953 Act', rent can be enhanced at the most upto five years the same rent can continue. The "1953 Act' contains a provision through Section 12that sets out the maximum amount that shall be payable by a tenant for any land held by him and it can be increased.

5. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.

6. The matter is no more res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in Vasandha Ram and anothe