In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) C.W.P. No.11337 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:30.7.2009 Balwinder Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... (2) C.W.P. No.11342 of 2009 ..... Bhagwant Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... (3) C.W.P. No.11344 of 2009 ..... Jagdev Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... (4) C.W.P. No.11347 of 2009 ..... Lal Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... C.W.P. Nos.11337/2009 etc. [2] Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of the above said writ petitions as these are similar in nature. The petitioners in the respective petitions in the year 1972 had taken land on lease out of land measuring 185 Kanals 2 Marlas for a period of nine years from Dharamshala Wakquia Deh Haza, Village Salaudi, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana (respondent No.3). The land was taken on lease through its Mohitmim Jagmohan Dass who died on 11.5.1986. Out of the land measuring 185 Kanals 2 Marlas, Kesar Singh father of petitioners Balwinder Singh and Sikandar Singh (in CWP No.11337 of 2009) took 52 Kanals 10 Marlas of land from respondent No.3-Dharamshala. Mohinder Singh, father of petitioner Bhagwant Singh (in CWP No.11344 of 2009) took 38 Kanals 12 Marlas of land from respondent No.3-Dharamshala. Lal Singh (petitioner in CWP No.11347 of 2009) took 36 Kanals 19 Marlas of land on lease from respondent No.3. It is alleged by the respective petitioners in the petition that they have been paying `Chakota' regularly. The earlier Mohitmim Jagmohan Dass had a dispute with the management of respondent No.3-Dharamshala. He was not traceable. Ultimately, it was reported that he had died on 11.5.1986. Thereafter, a dispute arose regarding appointment of Mohitmim of respondent No.3-Dharamshala between Harminder Pal Singh and Pawan Kumar Chela Mahant Jagmohan Dass. Harminder Pal Singh filed a suit against Kesar Singh, father of petitioners Balwinder Singh and Sikander Singh (in CWP No.11337 of 2009) and also the other co-lessees, who are lessees or successors-in- C.W.P. Nos.11337/2009 etc. [3] interest of the original lessees. Pawan Kumar Chela of Mahant Jagmohan Dass and Surjit Singh, were also parties in the suit filed by Harminder Pal Singh. Harminder Pal Singh claimed that he is legally appointed Mahant of Dharamshala Salaudi (respondent No.3) by the Udasin Sadhu Sect. He also claimed possession of various parcels of land that had been given on lease. The suit of Harminder Pal Singh was decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Samrala vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 (Annexure-P.1). On appeal preferred by the petitioners and other defendants the appeal was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure-P.2) and the suit filed by Harminder Pal Singh was dismissed. RSA No.1454 of 2007 against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2007 (Annexure-P.2) is pending in this Court. The respondent No.3 Dharamshala filed an ejectment petition in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Samrala for ejectment of the petitioners from the respective parcels of land which had been leased to them. The ejectment petition was contested on various grounds and one of them was the authority of Shri Harminder Pal Singh, the alleged Mohitmim to file the ejectment petition. The orders were challenged in appeal/revision before the Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala. The counsel for respondent No.3-Dharamshala had before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala agreed to extend the time for depositing the amount of rent by the lessees. The Commissioner, accordingly on 28.8.1998 observed that counsel for the Dharamshala (respondent No.3) had categorically stated that the tenant is at liberty to deposit the amount of `Chakota' in Government Treasury with the clear stipulation that it would be paid after decision of the competent Court. It is C.W.P. Nos.11337/2009 etc. [4] also observed that the tenants were trying to take advantage of various levels of litigation and, therefore, they did not deserve sympathy. Accordingly, it was directed that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade would ensure that before proceeding further with the case the tenants are made to deposit the due amount of rent as admitted by them in the Government treasury. Besides, any person finally appointed as Mohitmim shall be entitled to withdraw such deposited amount. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II) vide order dated 20.12.1999 ordered that the amount be deposited in a nationalized bank at Samrala within six weeks. The petitioners accordingly approached the AC Grade-I to pass necessary orders. The AC Grade-I, it is stated, vide order dated 31.3.2000 (Annexure- P.3) directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent upto 6.4.2000 in compliance with the order dated 31.3.2000 (Annexure-P.3). The petitioners deposited the necessary rent on 6.4.2000 through challan (Annexure-P.4). Respondent No.3-Dharamshala aggrieved against the orders dated 31.3.2000 (Annexure-P.3) and 6.4.2000 (Annexure-P.5) filed an appeal before the Collector, Ludhiana which was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Ludhiana vide order dated 30.4.2001 (Annexure-P.5) and the order dated 31.3.2000 (Annexure-P.3) allowing the petitioner to deposit the amount of rent was upheld. Respondent No.3- Dharamshala filed a revision petition against the order dated 30.4.2001 (Annexure-P.5) before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, who vide order dated 28.7.2005 (Annexure-P.6) accepted the revision and set aside the order dated 30.4.2001 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Collector, C.W.P. Nos.11337/2009 etc. [5] Ludhiana. The petitioners aggrieved against the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala dated 28.7.2005 (Annexure-P.6) filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue which has been dismissed vide order dated 2.12.2008 (Annexure-P.7). Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the matter in controversy had come to an end when the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II) passed the order dated 20.12.1999 whereby it was observed that the amount decreed needs to be deposited in a Nationalized bank at Samrala within six months from the date of order. The petitioners, it is submitted, deposited the arrears of rent on 6.4.2000 through challan (Annexure-P.4). Respondent No.3-Dharamshala, however, continued with an infructuous petition and preferred an appeal before the Collector-cum- Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana who vide order dated 30.4.2001 (Annexure-P.5) upheld the order dated 31.3.2000 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade but the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, it is stated, erred in allowing the petition of respondent No.3 which has been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 2.12.2008 (Annexure-P.7). Therefore, it is submitted that the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are liable to be set aside. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I find no merit in the same. The Divisional Commissioner, Patiala in her order dated 28.7.2005 observed that the tenants i.e. the petitioners instead of depositing the rent after getting notice in terms of Form-N had preferred appeals and revisions so as to get more time for depositing the due rent. This clearly showed that the tenants had willfully avoided the deposit of rent within the time limit due and also C.W.P. Nos.11337/2009 etc. [6] had not bothered to deposit the same after being served with notices under Form-N of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (`Act' – for short). After having heard the parties and perusing the record it was found that the petitioners had not paid/deposited the arrears of rent till the date of hearing i.e. 31.3.2000 despite issuing of notices in Form-N in which a period of one month had been prescribed. The learned Commissioner was constrained to point out that the petitioners had projected the entire dispute in a manner to justify their default in depositing the rent. They had concealed the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), while approaching Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The case was remanded to Assistant Collector Ist Grade with a direction to start ejectment proceedings against the tenants (petitioners) for default in payment of rent. The petitioners filed the revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner. It was observed that though the petitioners did deposit the amount due on 6.4.2000, their conduct was not above board as observed by the Commissioner. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that due amount was deposited vide treasury challan (Annexure-P.4). It may, however, be noticed that the ejectment of the petitioners is sought in terms of Section 14-A(ii) of the Act which reads as under:- “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 9-A - C.W.P. Nos.11337/2009 etc. [7] (i) xx xx xx xx xx (ii) a landowner desiring to recover arrears of rent from a tenant shall apply in writing to the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, having jurisdiction, who shall thereupon send a notice in the form prescribed, to the tenant either to deposit the rent or value thereof if payable in kind or give proof of having paid it or of the fact that he is not liable to pay the whole or part of the rent, or of the fact of the landlords refusal to receive the same or to give a receipt, within the period specified in the notice. Where, after summary determination, as provided for in sub- section (2) of Section 10 of this Act, the Assistant Collector finds that the tenant has not paid or deposited the rent, he shall eject the tenant summarily and put the landowner in possession of the land concerned; (iii) xx xx xx xx xx” Form-N of the said Act provides the notice which is to be issued and in terms of the said notice a period of 30 days had been provided for the payment of rent. The rent, it is submitted, has been paid on 6.4.2000 and that too in compliance with the order of the Financial Commissioner. However, it is to be ascertained by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade as to whether the statutory period fixed for payment of rent could be extended by the Financial Commissioner by order and in case the amount has been deposited whether it would amount to waiver of the notice that had been issued. These matters would more appropriately be considered on the basis of evidence and material available before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. C.W.P. Nos.11337/2009 etc. [8] In the circumstances, there is no error in the order dated 28.7.2005 (Annexure-P.6) passed by the Divisional commissioner, Patiala and the order dated 2.12.2008 (Annexure-P.7) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue). Consequently, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. July 30, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes