Mohinder Pal vs Gopal Dass

J.P.Gupta, F.C.

This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur dated 3071982 recommending that the impugned order be set aside and the ejectment of the respondents be ordered from the land in dispute.

Briefly, the petitioners filed an application on Form `L'' seeking ejectment of the respondentstenants from the land measuring 80 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Koel Khera for the non payment of share of produce of crops from Kharif 1979 onwards without any sufficient cause and also on the ground that respondent No. 1 had sublet the tenancy in favour of respondents No. 2 to 5. The learned A.C. Grade I, Fazilka, after perusing the evidence on record, vide his order dated 18.5.1981 dismissed the application with the following observations:

"The factum of pendency of appraisement proceedings in the Court of learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, in respect of Kharif 1979 is also not denied by the general attorney of the applicants and the counsel in his arguments and hence the question of payment of the share of produce of this crop before the finalisation of the proceedings by the learned Commissioner, does not arise. Apart from this, I tend to agree with the plea of the respondents No. 2 to 5 regarding nonpayment of share of produce for Rabi 1980 because of pendency of appraisement proceedings in the Court of learned Collector, Fazilka, and the learned counsel for the applicants could not deny this fact during the course of arguments. Regarding the share of produce of Kharif 1980 crop, filing of an application on Form `P'' by the respondents comes to rescue in the form of sufficient cause for nonpayment of the share of produce."

Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed vide his order dated 16.11.1981. Still unsatisfied the petitioners went in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur who, after hearing the parties and relying on 1973 PLJ 576 recommended this reference to this Court for setting aside the impugned order of learned A.C. Grade I and that of learned Collector for ejectment of respondents from the land in dispute.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order of the Assistant Collector Grade I, Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner. The plea of the tenant is that he is not aware of his correct liability and therefore he could not pay the rent to the landowner. According to him, pending appraisement he is not able to pay the rent and this constitutes sufficient cause for not paying rent to the landowner. He further argued that the mere fact that he has approached the revenue officers for appraisement, shows that he is only keen to pay the correct rent as assessed by a competent authority. It is on the basis of this pleas that the Assistant Collector Grade I and learned Collector rejected the application of the landlord. It implied that the tenants shall pay the rent as assessed by the revenue authorities on the applications filed for appraisement. The learned Commissioner has taken a different view and has recommended that in case of doubt, the tenant should have deposited the rent with the revenue authorities and has taken support from the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported in 1973 PLJ 576. The facts of the case referred to are however different.The circumstances in the reference from the Commissioner are that the tenant has gone to the revenue authorities to seek proper verdict for his liability and once it is available to him, he is duty bound to pay it to discharge his liability towards landowner under a proper receipt. It will be too much assume that the tenant could of his own deposit the rent in dispute with the revenue authorities. In fact, he does not know the amount which is payable. Under the circumstances I decline the reference and uphold the orders of Assistant Collector Grade I and the Collector dated 18.5.1981 and 16.11.1981 respectively. Further the tenant cannot be ejected for nonpayment of rent for Rabi 1980 till appraisement of Kharif 1979 is available. In all probability by now, the appraisement should be available and if so, the tenant shall have no chance to continue on the land if he still fails to pay the rent as due from him as a result of appraisement.

To be communicated. Reference declined.