- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order of ejectment passed against the petitioners, who were admittedly tenants under the State. The petition had been filed by the State under Section 42 of the Punjab Tenancy Act on the ground that the respondents had been cultivating the land as tenants gair marusi on 1/3 rd batai. Since they had not paid the rent, the petition for eviction was being filed. In the same petition, the State had also averred that since rent had not been paid, the State "would take another remedy".
(2.) The argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the action for eviction itself is restricted to how the procedure is laid down under the Act. Sections 42 to 45 contain the procedure for such ejectment. Section 42 is restrictive in its language, for, it makes an action for eviction only when there is a decree for arrears of rent in respect of tenancy and the same remains unsatisfied. There is yet another ground mentioned in the petition where the tenancy is for a fixed tenure which is not necessary for us. Section 43 contemplates that an application to revenue officer for ejectment to be filed if the case mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 42 is attracted. It means therefore that an application is possible for arrears of rent only if a decree for arrears of rent had been passed. Section 44 is more explicit in that it says that the ejectment could be made only on failure to satisfy "decree for arrears of rent". Section 45 deals with ejectment of a tenant from year to year by a notice in a case where Section 42(b) is operative. We have already seen that Section 42(b) applies only to tenants for some fixed tenure which was not applicable to this case. The petition could not have been maintained at all.
(3.) The impugned order is set aside and the State will be at liberty to take appropriate action for recovery of batai in the manner known to law and secure eviction permissible by law after a decree is obtained and if the decree remains unsatisfied.;