R.S. Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THE circumstances giving rise to this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against an order, dated May 20, 1966, of a learned Single Judge of this Court, are as follows:
(2.) GIANI and Piara Appellants, sons of Shri Mathra of village Bayyanpur, Tehsil Sonepat, are big landlords. They had purchased some agricultural land from Pirthi and Shrimati Lali, Respondents 5 and 6, respectively. The land was in the occupation of the tenants, Chandgi Ram, Dhara Singh and Munshi, Respondents 2 to 4. The aforesaid tenants made an application on January 7, 1957, under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, (hereinafter called the Act), for purchasing the land measuring 5 acres, 3 kanals and 7 marlas comprised in their tenancy before the Assistant Collector First Grade who dismissed it on August 28, 1958. On appeal by the tenants, the Collector decided on September 19, 1958, that the said tenants were entitled to purchase 324/551 share of the land in dispute. He, therefore, reversed the order of the Assistant Collector and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector with the direction that he should determine the shares which the tenants would be entitled to purchase, and work out the other details. The landlords approached the Financial Commissioner who, by an order of July 8, 1960, affirmed the order, dated September 19, 1968, of the Collector and sent the case back to the Assistant Collector for determining 'as to which landlord will have to part with how much land and in favour of which tenant'. He added that all this will have to be gone into in detail by the Assistant Collector to whom the case had been remanded after he had heard each party with regard to his exact share. After the remand, while the proceedings continued to linger and drift, the landlords made an application under Section 9(l)(ii) of the Act on the ground that the tenants had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause. Thus, while the proceedings in the application under Section 18 of the Act had not been finally decided and were still pending, the Assistant Collector, First Grade on May 31, 1962, accepted the landlords' application under Section 9 and passed an order of ejectment, the material part of which, reads as follows:. It is, therefore, quite evident that the Respondents had been defaulters in payment of rent regularly and are liable to be ejected. I, therefore, order...that they be ejected from the land in dispute from 1st May to 15th June, 1962. The learned Financial Commissioner has allowed to purchase a portion of the land in dispute. That right, has, therefore, been conferred by the learned Financial Commissioner on the Respondents and I order that by this ejectment, they shall not forego that right. As and when the question of purchase is finally decided, they will be allowed to purchase the land of their share. The landlords then made an application to the Assistant Collector, First Grade requesting for dismissal of the tenants' petition under Section 18 on the ground that his order, dated May 31, 1962, of ejectment of the tenants had put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Assistant Collector dismissed that application by an order of July 18, 1963. The landlords went in appeal to the Collector where, also they raised the contention that because of the order of ejectment, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties had come to an end, and, in consequence, the tenants' application under Section 18 was no longer maintainable. The Collector, however, did not accept this contention and dismissed the appeal with the observation - - ...That dropping of those proceedings would be quite unjust because this would deprive the tenants of a right which had been upheld even by the highest court and which right they were not able to enjoy because of the protracted proceedings before the Assistant Collector, First Grade. It would be most inequitous if the tenants are deprived of this right simply because the court was not able to take quick decision. I think this point was in the mind of the A.C.I.G., who dealt with the ejectment proceedings and that is why he qualified the ejectment order by saying that the right of purchase of land granted by all the courts up to the court of the Financial Commissioner, will remain intact. Against that order of the Collector, the landlords went in revision to the Commissioner who dismissed it with the observation that - - ...Quite obviously, the qualifying conditions of Section 18 operate at the time an application is made by the tenants. The argument that the relationship of a tenant and landlord must subsist between the parties under all circumstances at the time the actual purchase takes place, is not supported by a reading of the section itself. The provisions of this section are very wide. The right of purchase has been made available even to ex -tenants...In this particular case, the position is that the right of purchase...already accrued to the Respondents by virtue of the order of the learned Financial Commissioner himself - - - - -and it so happens that this right accrued at a time when the Respondents were in possession of their tenancy.
(3.) THE landlords approached the Financial Commissioner, in revision, who also, by his order dated May 20, 1964, upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. He also took the view that the tenants' right of purchase had not been affected by the subsequent order of ejectment. The landlords moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the aforesaid order of May 20, 1964, of the Financial Commissioner.;