KUSUMJIT SIDHU, F.C. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition u/s 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 25.5.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in Judicial Revision No. 52 of 2002 dismissing the revision of the petitioner and confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2001 and 27.11.2000 passed by the lower courts for recovery of Rs. 9804.78P.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the present respondent Anoop Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9804.78 paisa against the petitioner as share of produce in respect of land measuring 14 kanals 18 marlas (fully detailed in the heading of the plaint) situated in the area of village Masita, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. After hearing the parties and examining the evidence produced by the parties the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sultanpur Lodhi, passed a decree for recovery of Rs. 9804.78 paisa in favour of the respondent against the petitioner vide his order dated 27.11.2000. Feelling aggrieved by the decree the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, (ADC), Kapurthala, who after hearing the parties dismissed the same vide his order dated 19.10.2001. Not satisfied with this order, the petitioner again filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who after hearing the parties also dismissed the same vide his order dated 25.5.2004. Feelling aggrieved by this order, petitioner has preferred the present petition before this court. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same points as mentioned in the petition. Assailing the impugned orders passed by lower courts, he argued that these orders are totally erroneous, perverse and against law. He argued that the recovery suit was filed for 14K 18M when the respondent actually did not own this land. It is evident from the order dated 22.11.04 of the A.C. 1st Grade that Joginder Singh had only 11K 12M land to sell to the respondent Anoop Singh. The respondent filed the present suit for recovery on 23.5.94 on the basis of Jamabandi for 1987-88 while the Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 had already been prepared. Under the law, the latest Jamabandi pertaining to the land in dispute was required to be produced. He argued that Bhola Singh grand father of the petitioner was the owner/co-sharer of the land in dispute and he died on 16.12.91 where upon the land of the deceased Bhola Singh has devolved upon the petitioner and mutation No. 1563 in respect of the said land was sanctioned in favour to the petitioner on 26.11.1992 which was not challenged by any one. Thus the petitioner had become owner due to inheritance from deceased Bhola Singh. As a result the relationship of land lord and tenant ceased to exist between the present parties. He argued that uptill Rabi 1991, the present petitioner has paid all the lease money. He argued that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of lease money for his share of produce in Rabi 1991 to Kharif (Sauni) 1993 whereas the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exist between the present parties as the petitioner because owner/co-sharer of the land in dispute on 16.12.91. A person cannot be a tenant and land lord of the same premises at one and the same time. He also argued that the courts below have not properly followed the order dated 23.5.97 passed by this court in ROR Nos. 439 and 440 of 1991-92 between the same parties qua recovery of lease money from the present petitioner as share of produce for the crops Rabi 1982 to Kharif 1984 and Rabi 1985 to Kharif 1987, respectively in respect of the same land. He stated that at that time situation was different because the relationship of land lord and tenant existed between the parties. Now due to death the of Bhola Singh the position was changed. In support of this arguments, he quoted 1991 Vol (2) Recent Revenue Reports 451 Ajaib Singh v. Sant Singh decided by Punjab and Haryana High Court cases 379 (SC) - Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander, 1985 PLJ 80-Kala and Others v. Suraj Bhan Others and 1999(3) Civil Court Cases 354 (AP) V. Narasimha Chary v. P. Radha Bai and others. On these grounds, he argued that the respondent is not entitled to get the lease money in the present case. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the lower courts are not legal and justified which may be set aside and his petition be accepted.
(3.) ON the other hand rebutting the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondent argued on the same lines of submission made before the lower courts. He argued that the present petitioner is a tenant under the present respondent landowner since 1979 as per service revenue record, on land measuring 14K 18M. The respondent filed a suit for recovery which was decreed or 27.11.2000 by the A.C. 1st Grade, Sultanpur Lodhi which was for the period of Harri 1991 to Sauni 1993. This order has rightly been upheld by the lower courts. In a civil suit filed by the petitioner in the court of Sub Judge Sultanpur Lodhi, the court vide its order dated 7.10.85 held that the plaintiff (the present petitioner) as tenant of the suit land under the defendant. Likewise suit for declaration was also filed by the petitioner Ajit Singh in which it was also held by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Sultanpur Lodhi vide his order dated 6.5.02 that the plaintiff is a tenant in the suit land. Moreover in ROR No. 439-440 of 1991-92 filed by the present petitioner against the present respondent, the ld. FCR Punjab vide his order dated 23.5.97 while dismissing both the petitions also held that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent land owner. In this case recovery for the period. Rabi 1982 to Kharif 1984 was in dispute. Thus, the petitioner has already lost his case up to the highest revenue curt. He added that as per Section 116 of the Evidence Act, Doctrine of Estoppels applies in this case and according to this doctrine, once a tenant is always a tenant. The petitioner cannot question the title of the respondent land owner. He further added that the petitioner has been relying upon the orders dated 22.11.04 passed by the A.C. 1st Grade, Sultanpur Lodhi. In this regard he submitted that dispute is regarding crop Harri/Rabi 1991 to Kharif/Sauni 1993. Thus this order has no effect on the instant case. On these grounds, he prayed that the impugned orders passed by the lower courts, which are legal and justified, may be upheld and the petition may be dismissed.;