Gurbax Singh vs Mohd. Shafi and Others

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—This rule is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, who declined to interfere in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction w,ith the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,950 from Gurbax Singh, Petitioner.

Land measuring 37 bighas and 14 biswas in village Alamdipur came to be attached in proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The attached land was placed under the receivership of Field Kanungo, Ghanaur and in furtherance of his duty to manage it properly he gave it out on lease to the highest bidder. In an open auction, the Petitioner Gurbax Singh gave the bid of Rs. 2,600 which was accepted and a sum of Rs. 650 was actually deposited at the time. Gurbax Singh having declined to make the payment of the balance of the lease money proceedings were taken for its recovery by the person who was entitled to it. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate after considering the pleas raised by Gurbax Singh reached the conclusion that he was liable to make the payment of the sum of Rs. 1,950 and directed its recovery in accordance with rules. This order has been affirmed in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

It has now been urged by Mr. Wasu that the proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having terminated, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not have any jurisdiction to entertain an application for recovery of arrears of lease money. This, in my opinion, is not a correct approach to the problem. While the land was under attachment u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court was acting as castodia legis and was bound to recover the dues in respect of the period it was under the receivership of Field Kanungo.

It has further been contended by the learned Counsel that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have taken note of Section 9 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, under which in spite of any agreement, usage, decree or order of a Court, "the maximum rent payable by a tenant in respect of the land leased to him shall not exceed one-third of produce of the land or the value of such produce, as the case may be." This point was taken up before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and did not find favour with him. The concept of a tenant under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, is the same as under the Punjab Tenancy Act which defines a tenant under Sub-section (5) of Section 4 as the person ''''who holds land under another person, and is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other person;. "In my opinion, Gurbax Singh who gave the highest bid for cultivation rights in respect of Rabi crop, could not be regarded as a tenant. He was under a special contract liable to make the payment of Rs. 2,600, which was the highest bid. A person, who has such a liability under a special contract is excepted from the definition of tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act.

There is thus no force in- this petition which fails and is dismissed. The amount of Rs. 650 which has already been deposited will be realized by the Respondents, who would be entitled to the recovery of the balance as indicated in the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura.