JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE landlord who had failed to eject the tenant up to the highest revenue Court, has approached this Court through the present writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) SMT . Krishni, original landowner initiated proceedings for the eviction of Surja; a tenant. On June 14, 1971, the application was dismissed on the ground that she had failed to produce evidence in spite of the grant of the various opportunities. She filed another application alleging that the tenant had failed to pay rent for the crops from Kharif 1965 to Rabi 1971 without sufficient cause. Initially, this application was dismissed for default. It was subsequently restored. On October 21, 1976, the Assistant Collector accepted the application and ordered the ejectment of the respondent tenant. In the meantime, he (the tenant) had filed an application dated September 11, 1974 under Section 14-A (iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for payment of rent. Before this application could be decided, he filed an appeal challenging the order of ejectment passed by Assistant Collector before the Collector. The case was remanded vide order dated December 21, 1976, for fresh decision in view of the pendency of the application for payment of rent. On April 15, 1977, the Assistant Collector dismissed the application dated September 11, 1974. On May 13, 1977, the Assistant Collector ordered the ejectment of the tenant. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. It appears that Smt. Krishni died. Her estate was then represented by her adopted son Amar Nath, the present petitioner. The tenant appealed to Collector. It was accepted vide order dated November 24, 1977. The case was remanded to the Collector. On January 18,1978, the tenant filed another application under Section 14-A (iii) for deposit of Rs. 859-93 paise towards rent. On December 14, 1978, the Collector dismissed the application for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that 'the appellant tenant had deposited the amount of 'batai' for Rabi 1969 to Rabi 1970 and Kharif 1970 to Rabi 1977 in the Govt. Treasury' vide receipts dated January 14,1978 and January 11,1978. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P-4. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on November 11, 1980 vide order at Annexure P-5. His revision petition also met the same fate and it was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on August 26, 1981. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-6. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The impugned orders have been challenged on various grounds which will be presently noticed. It appears that during the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent-tenant expired. Consequently, his legal heirs were impleaded. The reply to the writ petition has been filed by his son Sewa Ram. In this affidavit, it has been inter alia averred that the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the revenue authorities cannot be interfered with by this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further pointed out that Smt. Krishni Devi owned 102 standard acres of land out of which 72 standard acres were declared surplus. However, she has managed to get most of her tenants ejected. It has been further averred that the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest 'never' issued any receipt and when the respondent smelt foul play, he submitted an application to the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, Karnal, under Section 14-A (iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act for payment of rent batai of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. . . . . . But they avoided the service of notice for years together. Rather they managed to get the application misplaced on account of their influence to make it impossible for the answering respondent to deposit the rent in Court. The respondent avers that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and his conduct is contumacious. It is further averred that 'non-payment of rent was a sufficient cause-'. Reference has also been made to the proceedings before the civil Court where collusive decree was obtained 'so that the respondent may not be able to know the person entitled to (receive) the rent. ' It has also been averred that the respondent has filed an application under Section 14-A (iii) of the Act. A copy of the application dated September 14, 1970 has been produced as Annexure R-7. On merits, the claim of the petitioner has been controverted by the respondent and it has been prayed that the petition may be dismissed with costs.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. C. B. Goel, appearing for the petitioner has contended that the tenant having failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause, was liable to be ejected and that on the basis of the evidence on record, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant has submitted with equal vehemence that the landowner had initially avoided to receive rent with the oblique objective of evicting the respondent and as such no interference was called for in the circumstances of the case.;