IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15071 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.09.2011 Nand Ram son of Ramu, resident of Mani Ram Chowk, Mohalla Sainian, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar. ...Petitioner versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pritam Singh Baath, Advocate, for the petitioner. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner, who had been directed to pay 1/3rd batai which was determined as cash equivalent to Rs.1,800/- by the authority constituted under the Punjab Tenancy Act is before this Court, challenging the said order on two grounds: (i) the petitioner has been evicted and the relationship of the tenant and the landlord had ceased. The authorities have, therefore, not the competency to entertain and dispose of the landlord's claim under the Punjab Tenancy Act; and (ii) the rent as stipulated was cash rent of Rs.900/- and the direction for payment of 1/3rd batai was, therefore, not justified. Civil Writ Petition No.15071 of 1991 (O&M) - 2 - 2. As regards the first contention regarding the maintainability of the petition under the Punjab Tenancy Act, it is not denied that the petitioner was a tenant. The claim by the landlord for recovery of the rent is also admittedly for the period when he was a tenant. It appears that there had an order of eviction but the same is not before this Court. I am prepared to accept that there was an order of eviction, but he still continued in possession. The proceeding under the Act would be possible in all cases where there existed landlord and tenant relationship and the claim to rent is for the period when he was admittedly a tenant. In my view, it would be inappropriate to throw out a petition on the only ground that the landlord had obtained eviction and with an eviction order, he would also lose the right to obtain the lease that still remained payable. So long as the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is an admitted fact and the claim to rent is for the period when such relationship is existed, the jurisdiction of the authority cannot be lost by the supervening event of the tenant being evicted by an order through the authority constituted under the Act. 3. As regards the contention that there had been only an agreement to pay a lease of Rs.900/-, the petitioner relied on a compromise letter which had been written already which showed that the landlord was receiving Rs.1,000/-. The private respondents explained before the authority below that the receipt for a particular sum in full settlement when there were proceedings pending did Civil Writ Petition No.15071 of 1991 (O&M) - 3 - contain any reference that the lease was at all times for Rs.1,000/- or Rs.900/- as contended by the petitioner. The private respondents were, however, relying on the entries in the khasra girdawari for several years prior to the filing of the petition that the tenant was liable for 1/3rd batai. The authority has considered the same and has observed that the revenue entries that existed for several years prior to the petition could not be doubted and if it was ever an attempt of the tenant to say that it was only cash rent and it had been finalized between parties, it was surely for him to bring that evidence to displace the revenue entry. I do not find any error in the reasoning as regards the same. 4. The impugned orders are perfectly justified and I find no reason to interfere with the same. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 30.09.2011 sanjeev