S.S. Kang, J. - (1.) Khem Singh and Amrik Singh purchased lands from Mahant Darshan Parkash. Harnam Singh Petitioner, was a tenant on this (and under Mahant Darshan Parkash. In fact he had been cultivating this land for the last more than 40 years.
(2.) Khem Chand and Amrik Singh made an application under Sec. 14 -A (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 193(sic) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the recovery of rent from Harnam Singh and for his ejectment. This application was accepted by the Assistant Collector on 28th August, 1969. Notice in form 'N' had been issued to the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that the notice was not served on him. However, the process server in connivance with the landlords made a false report that the tenant Petitioner had refused to accept service of the notice, It later on transpired that the process -server had also reported that he had affixed the summons on the outer door of the Petitioner's house. On the basis of this report dated 8th July, 1969, ex -parte proceedings were taken by the Assistant Collector II Grade on 6th August, 1969. The case was adjourned to 19th August, 1969 for arguments and orders after ex -parte evidence produced by the landlords had been recorded on 12th August, 1969. On 19th August, 1969 he filed an application for setting aside the ex -parte proceedings taken against him. No orders were passed on that day and the case was adjourned to 25th August, 1969. On that day the arguments on behalf of the applicant landlords were heard ex parte. The application for setting aside the ex -parte proceedings was rejected Subsequently, the Assistant Collector passed order dated 29th August, 1969 for (sic) of the Petitioner.
(3.) The Petitioner filed appeal to the Collector against the order passed by the Assistant Collector, whereby he had refused to set aside the ex parte proceedings as well as also against the final order allowing the recovery of rent and ejectment. The Collector after going through the records concluded that prima facia(sic) he was of the view that the order refusing to aside the ex parte order should be set aside. He observed that even if the lower Court was not prepared to reconsider its decision of setting aside the ex parte order dated 6th August, 1969(sic) it should in any case have allowed the Petitioner to join further proceedings also held that the lower Court did commit a mistake in not allowing the Appellant Petitioner to joio(sic) further proceedings, since he had made (sic) appearance in the Court, however, he concluded that the Petitioner had not been prejudiced in any manner, because had not complied with the provisions of law in so far as he had failed to deposit the rent within 30 days of the service of the notice The Collector dismissed the appeal on 21st October, 1969.;