- (1.) Briefly the case of the petitioners is that they were small landowners and respondent No. 3 was a tenant under them on land measuring 51 Kanals 10 Marlas situate in village Bidhimal, District Faridkot. They made an application under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for ejectment of the said respondent before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Muktsar, who passed a conditional order on April 20, 1970 that he (respondent No. 3) be ejected subject to his settlement on surplus area.
(2.) It is alleged that respondent No. 3 failed to pay the rent regularly since Kharif, 1971 without sufficient cause and therefore the petitioners moved an application under Section 14-A (I) read with Section 9(ii) of the Act for the ejectment of respondent No. 3 from the above said land, before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. He gave a finding that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondent No 3 and the latter had failed to make payment of the rent without sufficient cause. Consequently he ordered ejectment of the latter vide order dated March 31, 1975. Having felt aggrieved against that order, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the collector, Faridkot, who dismissed the same on September 29, 1975 and upheld the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. He filed a revision petitioner before the Commissioner, Ferozepore Division who held that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties as an order of ejectment dated April 20, 1970 had already been passed against the tenant. According to him, in the aforesaid situation the tenant was not liable to ejectment on that ground. He consequently, made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the order of the Collector dated September 29, 1975. The matter was finally decided by the Financial Commissioner as per order dated August 3, 1978. He accepted the recommendation and held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondent No. 3 consequently, he upset the order of the Collector ad dismissed the application for ejectment filed by the petitioners. They have challenged the legality and propriety of the said order through this writ petition.
(3.) The only question that arises for determination is an to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioners and respondent No.3 after an order of ejectment having been passed against him under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act subject to the condition that he shall be dispossessed after he has been accommodation on surplus area, if he remains in possession of the land as surplus area for accommodating him is not available with the Collector. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that if respondent No. 3 remains in possession of the property after the order of ejectment as surplus area is not available for accommodating him, he shall be deemed to be a statutory tenant on he property and liable to ejectment in case he fails to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause. He, in support of his contention made a reference to Ram Phul v. Kabul Singh 1974 Pun LJ 281, and Pyare Lal v. Kamla Rani, 1976 LJ 334.;