- (1.) The petitioner and his father, namely, Sardar Singh were inducted as tenants on the suit land with liability to pay fixed Chakota of Rs. 270/- per annum since the year 1956. This rate of Chakota is also found recorded in the copies of jamabandies for the years 1958- 59, 1963-64 and 1968-69. As per the petitioner, the rate of rent and its mode of payment could not be legally changed without the mutual consent of both the parties. Still, Ram Lal, father of the respondent Nos.5 and 6, got the entries changed in the jamabandies illegally in connivance with the then Patwari to record that the petitioner's possession was Bila Lagaan Bawaja Qubza Zaberdast. Thereafter, he filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner under Section 77 (iii) of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short "the Act") read with Section 7 to 7-A and 8 of the Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Act, 1955 (for short "Pepsu Act"). Respondents also sought recovery of rent at the rate of 1/3rd share of the produce amounting to Rs. 6383-83P for the crops from Hari 1978 to Sauni 1980. This suit was decreed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 5.1.1984. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 subsequently filed an application for execution of this decree on 5.5.1987, which was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 30.12.1988 on the ground that decree stood fully satisfied and the petitioner had already paid an amount of Rs. 4933.24P as per the decree.
(2.) Without making any mention to the abovesaid facts, respondent Nos.5 and 6 instituted another suit under Section 77(3) of the Act on 5.7.2007 for ejectment of the petitioner and for recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 45,684/- for use and occupation of this land for the years Kharif 1994 to Rabi 1997. The said suit was also decreed on 5.7.2007. Assistant Collector while allowing this suit relied upon the decree dated 5.1.1984 stating that the petitioner had already been evicted vide this decree and the execution of the same was pending. On this basis, it was observed that petitioner is in illegal possession of the suit land. According to the petitioner, this contention was factually incorrect and shows non-application of mind.
(3.) Aggrieved against this, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed on 11.2.2009. The Collector also fell in the same trap and relied upon an earlier decree dated 5.1.1984. Divisional Commissioner also dismissed the revision by expressing the same opinion and even the Financial Commissioner did so. The petitioner would contend that the authorities did not consider the plea of the petitioner that he was required to be afforded an opportunity to pay the arrears or rent within further period of six months from the date of decree or the order directing his ejectment. As per the petitioner, he was always ready and willing to pay the rent.;