- (1.) The petitioners through this writ petition challenge the order dated August 25, 1972 (a copy of which is Annexure P/3, appended to the petition) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division and order dated June 2, 1976 (a copy of which is Annexure P/4, appended to the petition) passed by the Financial Commissioner. It has arisen in the following circumstances: The landowners, under whom Rafiq, respondent No. 9 was a tenant, filed an application under section 9(1)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (for short 'the Act'), 1953, on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay rent regularly from Kharif 1966 to Rabi 1969 without sufficient cause and that he was not cultivating the land in dispute in accordance with the custom prevalent in the area. It is not necessary to give the detailed history of the litigation. It suffices to mention that the Assistant Collector allowed the application and directed ejectment of respondent No. 9 vide order dated May 18, 1971, on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay rent without sufficient cause. Aggrieved Rafiq, tenant, went up in appeal before the Collector. This appeal was dismissed on February 18, 1972. Dissatisfied Rafiq filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, who was impressed with the contentions raised by the tenant. He made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and the Collector be set aside. After hearing the parties and perusing the recommendation of the Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that because of a previous order passed by the Collector in proceedings under section 14-A(ii) of the Act, the landowners were not entitled to recover rent for the crops-Kharif 1966 to Rabi 1969. He recorded a finding that Rafiq, respondent No. 9, had failed to pay rent for one crop, i.e. Kharif 1969. He was, however, of the view that default in the payment of rent for a single crop will not render the tenant liable to ejectment under section 9(1)(ii) of the Act. Presumably, he had taken this view on the basis of certain judgments by this Court in which a similar view had been taken. Dissatisfied with this order the petitioners have filed the present petition.
(2.) It will be appropriate to read clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act at the very threshold: "9. Liability of tenant to be ejected :-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no landowner shall be competent to eject a tenant except when such tenant--(i) is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or is a tenant of a small landowner; or (ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause.........."
(3.) A bare reading of the above statutory provision reveals that it is the liability of the tenant to pay rent regularly. He cannot commit a default in the performance of this duty. Every infraction thereof visits the defaulting tenant with dire consequences i.e. 'ejectment' unless he is able to show that there was a sufficient cause for the default. It is not necessary to dilate upon this point any further because the matter stands concluded against the petitioner by the verdict of the Final Court in Mrs. Raj Kanta v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and another, 1980 PunLJ 346. It has been observed:- "On a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, it seems to us that the Legislature clearly intended to use the word 'regularly' to mean payment of rent in a uniform and consistent manner without any breach or default. The Legislature never contemplated that a single default could be condoned. This inference is fortified by the words, "without sufficient cause". In other words, the Legislature clearly provided that if the tenant had committed a default, whether one, two or more, the same could only be condoned if sufficient cause is shown and not otherwise. If, however, we accept the interpretation of the High Court, then the words "sufficient cause" become absolutely redundant................In these circumstances, reading the entire sentence, the cumulative effect thereof unmistakably is that the Act includes even a single default and that is why instead of using the word 'default' the word 'regularly' has been employed which is immediately followed by the words 'without sufficient cause"............." In the above mentioned case the tenant had made a default in the payment of rent for one crop only. The Supreme Court upsetting the decision of this Court had held that even a single default without sufficient cause rendered the tenant liable to ejectment.;