Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of Civil Writs No. 3104 and 3105 of 1970 as common question of law and fact arises in both these petitions.
(2.) THE only point that requires determination in these cases is whether the time allowed for depositing the arrears of rent by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, would start running from the date when the order was passed by the Assistant Collector or from the date when final order was passed by the Financial Commissioner on revision. The determination of the above mentioned question is to proceed on the basis of the admitted facts which are being narrated from the petition filed by Ranjit Singh and are as follows: 2. The petitioner is a tenant on the land in dispute under Smt. Sham Kanr, Respondent No. 3, who filed an application in the Court of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jagraon, Respondent No. 2, under Section 14A (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 3rd April, 1963 on Form 'N' prescribed under the rules framed under the Act, seeking recovery of a sum of Rs. 4500/ - as arrears of rent from Kharif 1959 to Rabi 1960, Kharif 1960 and Rabi 1961, and Kharif 1961, and Rabi 1962. The Assistant Collector, First Grade, vide his order dated 26th December, 1963, directed that a sum of Rs. 1164.22 paise be paid to Respondent No. 1 as arrears of rent within one month from the date of the said orders failing which the petitioner would render himself liable for ejectment, Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 22nd June, 1964. His revisions before the Commissioner, Jullundur, and the Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh were also dismissed on 8th December, 1966 and 12th May, 1967 respectively. It may be mentioned that right upto the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner was granted stay with regard to his dispossession. After the dismissal of the revision petition by the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner made an application before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent and as per order dated 27th May, 1967, Respondent No. 2, directed the petitioner to make the said deposit which he did on 27 -5 -1967. Notice of the said application was issued to the landowner Respondent No. 3. On the receipt of the notice, Respondent No. 3 raised an objection to the said deposit but the same was overruled by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, vide his order dated 22nd January, 1968. The said order of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, was affirmed on appeal by the Collector vide his order dated 30th September, 1968. Aggrieved from that order, the landowner -respondent No. 3, filed a revision petition before the Commissioner Jullundur Division, who vide his order dated 30th January, 1970 (copy Annexure 'C' to the petition) made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner, Respondent No. 1 for setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, and the Collector. The Financial Commissioner accepted the said recommendation of the Commissioner, Jullundur, and set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector vide his order dated 35th September, 1970 (copy Annexure 'D' to the petition). It is the legality and propriety of the orders of the Financial Commissioner that have been challenged by way of this petition. It was contended by Mr. A.L. Bahl, learned counsel, that the petitioner had obtained a stay order and that he was entitled to deposit arrears of rent within one month from the date of the final order passed by the Financial Commissioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner after the passing of the order by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, filed an appeal against that order and had obtained stay with regard to his dispossession, that thereafter also before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, stay with regard to his dispossession was allowed to continue and that in this situation it was not obligatory on the petitioner to comply with the other direction of the Assistant Collector with regard to the deposit of arrears of rent. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the order staying dispossession should be construed as an order staying the operation of the entire order of the Assistant Collector, First Grade. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. Bali, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, that the petitioner was bound to deposit the arrears within the time specified by the Assistant Collector and that if the petitioner was allowed to deposit the arrears the passing of the final order by the Financial Commissioner then it would result in extension of time to make the deposit of rent which according to the learned counsel was not legally permissible.
(3.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and to the various judicial pronouncements on which reliance was placed, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.;