- (1.) All the writ petitions challenge to the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner affirming the decision taken by the Commissioner in the proceedings for eviction taken at the instance of the several landlords all of whom were members of the same family against various tenants claiming ejectment under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for nonpayment of rent for their crops namely Rabi 85 to Rabi 86. The contention on behalf of the tenants had been that they have been in occupation of the property since the year 1941 from three persons namely Ami Lal, Dewan and Pholu and claims were made at the instance of several landlords after some family arrangements amongst the members of the family and hence all the tenants were paying the rent to one Dhup Singh who was the son of Chandersukhi, the daughter of Ami Lal referred to above. The Assistant Collector and the Collector had found that the tenants contention that rent had been paid to Dhup Singh cannot be accepted for the revenue entries clearly showed the ownership in the respective landlords who had claimed the eviction and there was no proof that any rent had been paid to Dhup Singh or he was entitled to claim the rent on behalf of the respondent landlords.
(2.) The decision taken by the Collector and the Assistant Collector had been set aside by the Commissioner on the reasoning that Dhup Singh was their own relative and in fact was also one of the petitioners in the petition for eviction. Dhup Singh had not been examined and the reasoning of the Assistant Collector and the Collector that Dhup Singh must have been examined by the tenant was wrong. On the other hand, only the landlords must have examined them to deny the receipt of the rent. They further reasoned that they had been in possession of the property ever since 1941 and they were all tenants in respect of the property which had been dealt with under the surplus area proceedings under the Act. The Patwari gave evidence on the side of the respondents to say that the surplus property held by the tenants fell within the permissible area of the tenants themselves. After 1941 since when the tenants claimed to be in possession of mutations of holding in the names of the present land owners had been made on 16.9.1953 and other proximate dates, after the properties were gifted by the original land owners. While some of them got by means of family settlement others got the properties through Civil Court decrees. The Commissioner found that there was surely no proof of whether the surplus area of the original land owners, Pholu, Diwan and Ami Lal had been decided under the Act and what had been the status of the tenants therein, whether the area under their cultivation was part of the tenants permissible area or the land owners permissible area. The tenants had contended that they are the tenants of lands which have been declared surplus and if it were to be so under the scheme of the Act the properties held by the tenants if it was in excess must have been taken as tenants permissible area. On the contrary, if it had been within the extent of 30 standard acres held by the land owners for personal cultivation, it must have fallen within the land owners' permissible area. The Commissioner still held that the authorities below namely the Collector and the Sub Collector could not have ordered eviction without examining the issue of whether the properties fell within the permissible area of land owners Pholu, Diwan and Ami Lal ought to have seen the status of the present tenants and the way it had affected the landlordtenant relationship. The Commissioner found that it was not possible to give a finding on that issue at the stage, but allowed the case to rest on a factual issue that the contention of the tenants that the rent had been paid to Dhup Singh must be accepted and the non-examination of Dhup Singh itself must be taken an issue against them. The Financial Commissioner reasoned that the scheme of the Act under Section 14 made it clear that the tenant must have been given opportunity to pay the rent through the Court to avoid default and to enable the landlords to immediately recover the rent by way of notice in form M/N. The Financial Commissioner held that under the peculiar circumstances it was difficult to uphold the landlords' contention that there had been any default in the payment of rent and the petition had been filed when the primary object of eviction of tenants and not so much to collect the rents. The Financial Commissioner found that there had been no proof of non-payment of rent and rejected the petition for eviction.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kanta Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and another, 1980 PunLJ 346 to contend that even a single default without a sufficient cause would afford a ground for ejectment. This decision can have an application only if there is a definite finding that there had been a default in the payment of rent. In this case the finding is that the rent had been paid to Dhup singh and the claim of non-payment was not believed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Dhup Singh had been examined as a witness and he had also denied receiving the rent. This contention is rather strange, since Dhup Singh himself had filed a writ petition in CWP No. 13850 of 1991 and he has averred in the grounds of writ petition that the tenants must have examined Dhup Singh in answer to a specific finding that Dhup Singh had not been examined by the landlords. I do not find any challenge in the grounds contained in the writ petition against the impugned orders that Dhup Singh had been examined and that had been omitted to be noticed by the authorities. I cannot therefore accept the contention of the petitioner that Dhup Singh had been examined.;