Nazar Singh vs Indu Mati

C.D. Cheema, F.C.

This revision petition has been filed under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division dated 17.11. 87 and order dated 27.2.1985 of A.C. 1st Gurdaspur relating to an ejectment case.

Briefly, the facts of this case are that Smt. Indu Mati, now respondent, filed an application for ejectment of tenant Nazar Singh under section 14(A)(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 from her land situated in the revenue estate of village Matwan on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The tenant admitted his fault of nonpayment of rent to the landowner since rabi 1977 and A.C. Ist therefore, ordered the ejectment from the land in question vide order dated 1.4.1981. The tenant filed an appeal against this order before the Collector on the ground that the land under his tenancy was tenant''s permissible area and the landowner couldonly recover the rent but not eject him from the land in dispute. The Collector, however, dismissed and appeal on 27.8.1981 on the ground that the relationship of tenant and landlord existed between the parties and the tenant was a defaulter in the payment of rent. Regarding tenant''s permissible area the plea of the tenant was rejected on the ground that this court was not the proper place to agitate this point. Thereafter tenant filed revision petition before the Commissioner on the same ground which was dismissed in limine on 24.3.1982. Aggrieved by this order the tenant filed R.O.R. No. 427 of 198182 in the court of Financial Commissioner, Education, Punjab. After hearing the parties, the revision petition was accepted on 9.2.1983 with the observation, "that application for ejectment of tenant, not signed by the landowner himself, is not a proper application in terms of section 14A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. In view of this legal infirmity, I accept the revision and remand the case to Assistant Collector Grade I, Gurdaspur for deciding, this case afresh within three months after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties as required under the law."

On remand the A.C. Ist grade afforded an adequate opportunity to both the parties but they failed to bring any evidence. The application for ejectment of tenant under Section 14(A)(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act was got signed from the landowner. As the tenant had been found defaulter for nonpayment of rent by the earlier A.C. on 1.4.1981 so the A.C. Ist ordered the ejectment of tenant by his order dated 27.2.1985. Against this order the tenant filed an appeal before the Collector, Gurdaspur, who held that the area under tenancy with the tenant was under his possession before the commencement of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and formed his permissible area. The Collector accepted the appeal by his order dated 29.10.1985 and set aside the order of ejectment passed by A.C. Ist. The landlady file an appeal against this order before the Commissioner (A), Jalandhar Division. After hearing the parties the learned Commissioner observed that, "in this case the issue was of nonpayment of rent by the tenant before the Collector in appeal but he considered the case of the tenant for ejectment from the permissible area. This fact had not been raised before the trial court or before the Financial Commissioner by the tenant. The Collector wrongly disagreed with the findings of A.C. Ist. These facts prove that the direction given by the F.C. has been complied with the A.C. Ist." So he accepted the appeal of the landlady by order dated 17.11.1987 and set aside the order of Collector, Gurdaspur, which order has now been impugned before this court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent filed an application for the ejectment of tenant. Ultimately the case was remanded by the Financial Commissioner, Education, Punjab, to A.C. Ist for fresh decision. According to learned counsel, earlier the land belonged to one Narinder Nath and the petitioner was tenant from the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 and the area under him was Tenant''s Permissible Area. However, this plea was not considered by A.C. Ist though the Collector accepted the appeal and remanded the case. The learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner has wrongly mentioned that plea of ''TPA'' was not raised either before the F.C. Education or A.C. Ist. According to learned counsel land of Narinder Nath couldnot be transferred to Indu Mati. After remand no opportunity was given by A.C. Ist to the petitioner and A.C. Ist proceeded on the only assumption that clerical defect Was there.

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only objection was that the Attorney was not signed by the landowner. In the written statement, the petitioner, however, did not say about payment of rent in ''TPA''. The learned counsel further submitted that in the witness box the petitioner said that no rent had been paid and there is no document to prove that the land is TPA. The order of Commissioner is very clear. Various opportunities were afforded to the petitioner but he failed to prove his case.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The petitioner has been raising the plea of TPA (Tenant''s Permissible Area) from the very beginning that the area under the tenancy of the petitioner was under his possession before the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and has formed his permissible area. This aspect of the case has not been considered at all, which has resulted in an irregularity. Before the Collector, Gurdaspur the tenant filed an affidavit dated 6.2.1981 to the effect that he was tenant under Mahant Narinder Nath from the year 194445 and this area couldnot be included in the permissible area of the landowner, being Tenant''s Permissible Area. But this aspect of the matter was not considered. After the remand of the case by F.C. Education, the Collector, Gurdaspur clearly held in his order dated 29.10.1985 that the area under tenancy of the tenant was before the year 1953 and on this ground alone appeal was accepted and order of ejectment set aside. The Commissioner (A) did not consider this aspect of the case and accepted the appeal of the respondent on a technical ground. Since the petitioner has been agitating about TPA and none except Collector Gurdaspur considered his plea and accepted the appeal, the tenant couldnot be ejected from the area under T.P.A. and only rent can be charged. Resultantly revision petition is accepted and the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar and order dated 27.2.1985 of A.C. Ist Grade, Gurdaspur as set aside and the order of Collector is restored.

The case is remanded to A.C. Ist, Gurdaspur for deciding the mater regarding Tenant''s Permissible Area after giving due opportunity to the parties of being heard. Announced.