Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) THE writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of ejectment passed against the appellant by the Revenue authorities was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated February 6, 1975. The present letters patent appeal is directed against the same.
(2.) THE land in dispute owned by respondents Nos. 5 to 9 was under lease with Shrimati Umrao Begum and others as permanent lessees on the basis of a patanama. The tenants were liable to pay rent under the lease to the landlord at the rate of Rs. 109/ - par annum and in case of default for three years, were liable to be ejected Consequent to the partition of the country in 1947, the Muslim tenants migrated to Pakistan and the property, thereafter was vested in the Central Government as evacuee property. The proprietary rights therein were allotted to the appellant by the Managing Officer on the basis of the auction and the provisional transfer was effected in his favour by order dated June 2, 1958. (Annexure A). However, in the revenue records including the jamabandi and the girdawaris, the appellant was entered as a lessee. The landlords, respondents Nos. 5 to 9, filed a suit for ejectment against the appellant in the court of the Assistant Collector under section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, (hereinafter called the Act), on the ground that the lease money had not been paid, the value of the land had been reduced as a result of misuser and the same had been sublet. The suit was decreed and the order of ejectment was passed on June 2, 1970 (Annexure B). Appeal before the Collector was dismissed on April 12, 1971 (Annexure D), with a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner for acceptance of the revision petition. However, the learned Financial Commissioner upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector by his order dated May 1, 1973 (Annexure E).
(3.) IT was held by all the revenue authorities that the status of the appellant after auction by the Rehabilitation authorities was that of a tenant and he was liable to pay rent to respondents Nos. 5 to 9 who were his landlords The contention of the appellant before the Commissioner was that he had submitted an application on March 6, 1971 before the Collector with a prayer that he may be allowed to pay the arrears with interest due under section 48 of the Act and that he should not be ejected. According to the appellant, this application had not been decided by the Collector and as such, the order of the Collector in the suit could not be sustained According to the Commissioner, this application had, in fact been decided on merits and dismissed by the Collector by his order dated March 6, 1971. However, it was held that the appellant was entitled to the relief under section 48 of the Act. Consequently, he recommended to the Financial Commissioner that the Assistant Collector be directed to determine the amount of compensation under section 48 after hearing both the parties and also the arrears of rent due on the payment of which the appellant should be allowed to continue in possession.;