D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 3119, 3408, 3409 and 3454 of 1968. The point involved in all of them is the same.
(2.) THE tenants in all these petitions made applications under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for purchase of the land under their tenancies. In two petitions Nos. 3408 and 3453 of 1968, the landlords had applied earlier for the eviction of the tenants and the tenants' petitions to purchase the land were made a few months thereafter, whereas in the other two petitions Nos. 3119 and 3409 of 1968, the purchase applications were made earlier to the applications by the landlords for eviction of the tenants. All these applications under, Section 18 were allowed by the Assistant Collector and so also the applications for eviction. The matter ultimately came up before the Financial Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner passed the following order which is the subject -matter of dispute in all the petitions: The Petitioner was ejected from the land in suit for default in payment of rent. Strangely enough his application under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act for the purchase of the land was also accepted. Both these orders are said to have been passed by the same officer, Mr. Hargolal. It is not clear whether the ejectment was ordered first or the purchase. It is apparent that if the Petitioner was ordered to be evicted earlier, then his application under Section 18 cannot succeed. If the contrary is the case, then the order of ejectment was untenable. The case is accordingly sent to the Collector, Rohtak, for determining which of these decisions was earlier. If the eviction was prior, then the present revision must be deemed to have been rejected. It is stated that the appeal of the landowner in the case under Section 18 is pending with the Collector. That may be decided on its own merits. The parties have been directed to appear before the Collector, Rohtak, on 29th June, 1968. It appears to us that the learned Financial Commissioner has really not done justice to the case. It was his duty to properly ascertain the facts leading to both types of petitions, and then determine the effect of one on the other. However, the matter is now set at rest by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal v. State of Punjab, 1970 P.L.J. 812. This decision was not noticed by the Financial Commissioner and rightly so because when he decided the cases, the decision was not in the field. The proper course would, therefore, be to set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner and direct him to dispose of the matters in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case, 1970 P.L.J. 812.
(3.) BEFORE parting with the judgment, we may set at rest one contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents. His* contention is that it is immaterial when the application under Section 18 is made by the tenant to purchase the land. If there is an order of eviction, that application has to be rejected. This does not follow from the decision of the Supreme Court. It is curious that the learned Counsel insisted that this result follows from the decision of the Supreme Court, whereas the decision of the Supreme Court is clearly an authority for the view that if on the date of Section 18 application, there is no order of eviction, Section -18 application cannot be defeated on the ground that subsequently an order for the eviction of the tenant has been passed. The relevant date to determine whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant is the date when the Section -18 application is made. If on that date that relationship subsists, the tenant is entitled to purchase the land no matter that the order of eviction is passed against him on a later date. This is how we understand the Supreme Court decision and this would be clear if my judgment in Ear Sarup v. The Financial Commissioner, 1965 P.L.J. 178, is read in conjunction with the Division Bench judgment reported as Giani v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 1969 P.L.J. 226 :, I.L.R. 1970 (2) P&H 700, wherein the Division Bench, while dealing with my judgment, observed as follows: For reasons aforesaid, I am unable to persuade myself to conform to the view taken on the point in Har Sarup's case, 1965 P.L.J. 178, ibid., and Malik Labhu Masih's case ibid., and by the learned Single Judge in the instant case. I would prefer to adopt the view taken in Amin Lal's case, which, if I may say so with respect, lays down the law on the subject, correctly. The Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case 1970 P.L.J. 812, accepted my view and the net result, therefore, is that it is the date on which the application under Section 18 is made on which it has to be seen whether there is Relationship of landlord and tenant. If on that date that relationship has come to an end, the tenant cannot purchase the land, but if that relationship subsists on that date any subsequent event that puts that relationship to an end will have no effect.;