- (1.) The facts of this case read as under :-
(2.) Mahant Bikram Dass, appellant, is the landowner, Diyal Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Harbans Singh, respondents, were tenants under him in respect of his agricultural land measuring 193 Kanals 15 Marlas, situated in the urban limits of Tung Bala, Tehsil Amritsar. The said respondents committed default in payment of rent to, the appellant, particularly with regard to the crops of 1951 to 1959. Thereupon, the appellant made an application to the Revenue court for recovery of rent and ejectment of the respondents. In those proceedings, a compromise was arrived at on 31st March, 1959, according to which, it was agreed that the total amount due with interest was Rs. 11,872/-. Out of that amount. Rs. 7,000/- were paid in cash by the tenants-respondents on 31st March, 1959, and they further agreed to pay the balance is six monthly instalments of Rs. 1,000/- each. The last instalment was to be of Rs. 872/-. The tenants-respondents committed default regarding the instalment of Rs. 1000/- due on 15th June, 1961 and another default on 15th December, 1961. Consequently, the landowner made two applications on 2nd April, 1962 for ejectment of the tenants-respondents, on the ground that they had failed to pay the rent without sufficient cause. One of these applications covered an area of 117 kanals and the other an area of 76 kanals and 6 marlas. Both the applications for ejectment were tried together and dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade by two orders, dated 10th December, 1963. Two appeals were preferred by the landowner but the same were dismissed by the Collector on 3rd March, 1964. Still dissatisfied, two revision petitions were preferred by the landowner before the Commissioner, who made a recommendation vide his order dated 1st March, 1965, to the Financial Commissioner to the effect that the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector be set aside, the revision petitions be accepted and a decree for ejectment be passed. The recommendation of the Commissioner was accepted by the Financial Commissioner by his order dated 26th November, 1965, with regard to the area measuring 76 kanals and 6 marlas (subject-matter of Revision No. 621) and a decree for ejectment was passed in favour of the landowner and against the tenants-respondents on the ground that the tenants had committed two defaults without sufficient cause and had thus incurred the liability to be ejected. In Revision No. 620 pertaining to 117 Kanals, the Financial Commissioner passed an order on 4th November, 1965, the material part of which reads as follows :- "This petition is infructuous in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the written application made by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is stated in this application that this land has been acquired by the Amritsar Improvement Trust and that possession has been taken by the Trust. It follows that the respondents are no longer tenants and the question of their ejectment does not arise. This petition is, therefore, dismissed." Feeling aggrieved from the said order of the Financial Commissioner, the landowner filed Civil Writ No. 1146 of 1966 in this Court, which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. On the contentions advanced on either side by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the petition and accordingly, dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent by Mahant Bikram Dass, against the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, dated November 27, 1970.
(3.) This appeal came up for motion hearing on 24th February, 1971, when the Bench passed the following order :- "Says that admittedly the possession of Khasra No. 424 was with the tenants and a finding qua their liability for ejectment and the relief of ejectment should have been granted. Notice. Notice regarding stay of payment of compensation. Stay meanwhile.";