Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia, Harbans Lal and S.S.Kang JJ.
Gurmej Singh
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 85 of 1973,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 17, 1980
PUNJAB SECURITY OF LAND TENURES ACT, 1953 - SECTION 14-A (II) - SCOPE AND AMBIT - PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF RENT - TIME LIMIT - EXTENSION OF TIME - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITIES - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a landlord, filed an application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Revenue, under Section 14-A (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), demanding arrears of rent for the crops from Kharif 1964 to Rabi 1968 in Form M. On this notice under Form N was issued to the respondents as tenants, according to which they were called upon to pay the arrears of rent within one month. The tenant-respondents filed objections in reply thereto and contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3. It was also contended that they had paid rent to petitioner No. 4. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated March 22, 1969, (Annexure A) allowed the objections and dismissed the application of the landlord-petitioners. This order was set aside in appeal by the Collector by his order, dated August 26, 1969 (Annexure B) and the order of ejectment was passed. The same order having been challenged by the tenants before the Commissioner, the case was remanded to the Collector vide his order dated December 10, 1969 (Annexure-C). However, the Collector, on remand, maintained his earlier order of eviction by his order, dated February 23, 1970 (Annexure D). This was also set aside by the Commissioner by his order, dated August 17, 1970, (Annexure E) and the case was remanded back to the Collector for fresh decision on the following two points: (1) Whether the tenant-respondents had deposited the rent for the year 1967-68 with the Assistant Collector IInd Grade? If so what was its effect keeping in view the further contention of the tenants that the rent had been paid by them to Bahadur Singh? (2) As the rent for two harvests was barred by time no order for ejectment of the tenants could be passed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the period of one month as prescribed in the notice of demand regarding the payment of arrears of rent, as issued by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, during which the arrears of rent can be by the tenant, is statutory and no jurisdiction is vested in the Assistant Collector, II Grade, before whom the application for demand is made in the first instance, the appellate Authority, or the Revising Authority, as the case may be, to extend this statutory period under any circumstances, whether objection raised by the tenant in reply to the demand notice relates to the non-liability to pay the arrears in whole or in part.
Issues: 1. Whether the Assistant Collector, II Grade, has the jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of arrears of rent after the expiry of the statutory period as prescribed in the notice of demand under Form N? 2. Whether the appellate or the revising Authority has the power to extend the time for payment of arrears of rent beyond the statutory period?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The period of one month as prescribed in the notice of demand regarding the payment of arrears of rent, as issued by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, during which the arrears of rent can be by the tenant, is statutory and no jurisdiction is vested in the Assistant Collector, II Grade, before whom the application for demand is made in the first instance, the appellate Authority, or the Revising Authority, as the case may be, to extend this statutory period under any circumstances, whether objection raised by the tenant in reply to the demand notice relates to the non-liability to pay the arrears in whole or in part. 2. The appellate or the revising Authority has the power to extend the time for payment of arrears of rent beyond the statutory period.
Final Decision: The order of the Financial Commissioner, dated 10th January, 1972 (Annexure H) setting aside the order of the Collector and the Commissioner and allowing fresh opportunity to the tenant to make payment of the arrears of rent has to be set aside. If is ordered accordingly, and the writ petition is allowed in these terms.
HARBANS LAL, J.
1. This writ petition was heard by me in the first instance on April 25, 1980. After hearing the arguments on both sides, I came to the conclusion that there was an apparent conflict of opinion regarding the scope and ambit of Section 14-A (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. 1953 (hereinafter to be called the Act) between two Division Benches of this Court in Smt. Sham Kaur V/s. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, 1974 Rev LR 25 (Punj) and Balwant Singh V/s. Sodhi Lal Singh, 1966-68 Pun LR 380; (AIR 1966 Punj 483) and keeping in view the importance of the question of law involved, reference to a Full Bench was necessitated. It is in this background that the writ petition has been heard by the Full Bench.
2. For proper appreciation of the different contentions raised on both sides and the important legal questions involved, brief reference to the facts of the case is necessary. Some land of Bahadur Singh, petitioner No. 4, was declared surplus under the provisions of the Act which was transferred by him in favour of his two sons and his wife, petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, by means of a gift deed, dated May 29, 1955. This gift was ignored and the surplus land was allotted to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in different parcels under Section 10-A of the Act as tenants, who entered into possession on September 29, 1964. The petitioners as landlords filed an application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Revenue, under Section 14-A (ii) of the Act, demanding arrears of rent for the crops from Kharif 1964 to Rabi 1968 in Form M . On this notice under Form N was issued to the respondents as tenants, according to which they were called upon to pay the arrears of rent within one month. The tenant-respondents filed objections in reply thereto and contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3. It was also contended that they had paid rent to petitioner No. 4. The Assistant Collector, by his order dated March 22, 1969, (Annexure A) allowed the objections and dismissed the application of the landlord-petitioners. This order was set aside in appeal by the Collector by his order, dated August 26, 1969 (Annexure B) and the order of ejectment was passed. The same order having been challenged by the tenants before the Commissioner, the case was remanded to the Collector vide his order dated December 10, 1969 (Annexure-C). However, the Collector, on remand, maintained his earlier order of eviction by his order, dated February 23, 1970 (Annexure D). This was also set aside by the Commissioner by his order, dated August 17, 1970, (Annexure E) and the case was remanded back to the Collector for fresh decision on the following two points :
(1) Whether the tenant-respondents had deposited the rent for the year 1967-68 with the Assistant Collector IInd Grade? If so what was its effect keeping in view the further contention of the tenants that the rent had been paid by them to Bahadur Singh?
(2) As the rent for two harvests was barred by time no order for ejectment of the tenants could be passed.
3. The Collector, on remand, passed the order of eviction, dated 15th February, 1971 (Annexure-F). It was held that the rent for Rabi 1965 was not time barred but it was time barred for Kharif 1964, However, for the purposes of Section 14-A (ii) of the Act. even time barred rent was due from the tenants and it was their duty to pay the same. It was further held that as the application by the landlords had been filed on May 20, 1968 rent for Rabi 1968 which was to fall due on June 15, 1968, had not become due at the time of filing of the application. From Kharif 1965 to Kharif 1967 rent to the tune of Rs. 2, 429.68 had fallen due and was payable by the tenants. Regarding the contention by the tenants that the rent had been paid to Bahadur Singh petitioner, it was held that the alleged payment had not been proved. In view of these findings, the order of ejectment
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
