IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No. 465 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 20, 2010. Ram Piari and others ...... Appellants Versus. State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No. 1331 of 2010. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 107 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 465 of 2010. Appellants were the tenants in land measuring 69 kanals 16 marlas owned by respondents. For non payment of rent, respondents filed an application for their ejectment from the abovesaid land by invoking the provisions of Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (in short ‘the Act’). On moving an application, appellants were summoned, opportunity to file reply was given to them. The Competent Authority after looking into the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the appellants have committed default in making payment of rent and accordingly, their ejectment was ordered. Appellants remained un- successful in appeal and revision. They filed CWP No. 346 of 2009 to challenge the order passed by the authorities below, which was dismissed by Letters Patent Appeal No. 465 of 2010 (O&M). -2- the learned Single Judge, vide Order dated 12.01.2009 by observing as under :- “A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Assistant Collector, when moved with an application under Section 14-A(i), gave opportunity to both the parties to give their evidence. The respondents were given right to file reply and evidence and the case was then fixed for arguments. It is only thereafter that the Assistant Collector went to the documents on record. He found that the relationship of owners and tenants is clear. The respondents did not produce any receipt for the rent, which they had paid. It is also noticed that Balbir Chand, one of the respondents, admitted that they got receipt for land revenue house tax and further that Rattan Singh also admitted that they took receipt for payment of electricity bill and water charges bill. Accordingly, the plea of the petitioners that they were occupancy tenants was not accepted and their ejectment was ordered. A perusal of Section 14-A(ii), which has been relied upon by counsel for the petitioners, appears to have been substantially followed. Once the notice was issued to the petitioners, they could have deposited the rent or give proof of having paid the same. Apparently, they pleaded that landlord has refused to give receipt, which fact, they could not establish. Concurrent finding of fact with regard to non-payment of rent would not call for any interference on re-appraisal of evidence.” We feel that the Order passed is perfectly justified. Before us, counsel for the appellants by placing reliance upon proviso to sub-clause (i) of Section 14-A of the Act contended that no opportunity was granted to the appellants to make payment of rent by the Collector. The abovesaid provision reads thus :- “14-A. Procedure for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rents etc. - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and subject to the provisions of Section 9A- Letters Patent Appeal No. 465 of 2010 (O&M). -3- (i) a landowner desiring to eject a tenant under this Act shall apply in writing to the Assistant Collector First Grade, having jurisdiction, who shall thereafter proceed as provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of this Act, and the provisions of sub-section (3) of the said section shall also apply in relation to such application, provided that the tenant’s rights to compensation, and acquisition of occupancy rights, if any, under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, (XVI of 1887), shall not be affected; [Provided that if the tenant makes payment of arrears of rent and interest, to be calculated by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, at eight percentum per annum on such arrears together with such costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, either on the day of first hearing or within fifteen days from the date of such hearing, he shall not be ejected.]” We asked counsel for the appellants as to when notice of the application for their ejectment was received by the appellants? Whether thereafter on the first date of hearing, they made any attempt to deposit the amount or within 15 days thereafter as has been envisaged in the provisions mentioned above. Nothing has been shown on record to support the abovesaid contention. Before the learned Single Judge, this argument was not even raised. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE July 20, 2010. sjks.