IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 2246 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 07.12.2011 Dalel Singh .... APPELLANT Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Dalel Singh (tenant) has directed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 3.10.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 11730 of 2008) filed by the appellant, challenging the orders dated 20.5.2004; 14.9.2005; 30.11.2006; and 26.7.2007 (Annexures P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar; the Collector, Jhajjar; the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak; and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, respectively, has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Sanatan Dharam Pathshala, Jhajjar (respondent No.5 herein), who is the owner-cum-landlord LPA No. 2246 of 2011 -2- of the land in question measuring 28 kanals 15 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Jhajjar, filed a petition under Section 9 (1) (vii) read with Section 12 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as `the Land Tenures Act') for determination of rent payable by the tenant and for directing the appellant-tenant to execute the Qabuliyatnama/Pattanama in the prescribed form, in respect of his tenancy. The Assistant Collector Ist Class, after hearing both the parties, vide his order dated 20.5.2004 (Annexure P-1), determined 1/3rd Batai of the land in dispute as the rent, instead of fixed rent at the rate of ` 60/- per annum, and directed the appellant-tenant to execute the Qabuliyatnama regarding payment of 1/3rd Batai within a period of one month, failing which he would be ejected from the land in dispute. The said order was upheld by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, vide orders dated 14.9.2005; 30.11.2006; and 26.7.2007 (Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4), passed in appeal, revision and second revision petition, filed by the appellant-tenant. While challenging the aforesaid orders before the learned Single Judge, it was argued on behalf of the appellant-tenant that when he was paying the rent in cash at a fixed rate, i.e. ` 60/- per annum, since long, then he could not have been directed to pay 1/3rd Batai of the land in dispute under Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act, as it amounts to enhancement of rent without any justification. The learned Single Judge, while relying upon a decision of this Court in Om Parkash and others Versus State of LPA No. 2246 of 2011 -3- Haryana and others, 1989 PLJ 378, has rejected the said contention. In Om Parkash's case (supra), while dealing with the provisions of Sections (9) (1) (vii) and 12 of the Land Tenures Act, it was observed as under :- “The language of section 12 clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or usage, the maximum rent payable by a tenant for any land held by him shall not exceed one-third of the crop of such land or the value thereof as determined in the prescribed manner. That being so, the outer limit prescribed by the said section is that the maximum rent will not exceed one-third of the crop of such land or the value thereof which may be determined in the prescribed manner. Thus, there is nothing wrong or illegal in the impugned orders as to be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction. Apart from the above, it was held in Guru Amarjit Singh V. Punjab State and another, 1962 Punjab Law Journal 98, by the Division Bench of this Court that no doubt the value of the produce of the land is always taken into consideration when fixing the cash rent, but the same cannot remain in force for all times to come because the value of the produce of the land goes on varying from year to year. A cash rent fixed in any particular year become the customary rent. The landlord can get the rent enhanced, but the same cannot be exceed one-third of the crop of the land or the value thereof. Again in Vasandha Ram V. State of Haryana, 1982 Punjab Law Journal 452 : 1984 R.R.R. 596, it was held by this Court that the purpose of execution of qabuliatnama will be frustrated unless the amount of rent is determined.” In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the orders passed LPA No. 2246 of 2011 -4- by the revenue authorities, while following the aforesaid judicial precedent. It has been observed that the orders passed by the revenue authorities are neither without jurisdiction nor in any way perverse or unreasonable. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act does not contemplate conversion of cash rent into one third Batai cannot be accepted. Since the value of crop has gone up, the cash rent should also increase proportionately. Since the landlord has asked for one third of the Batai, which is not exceeding the maximum provided, the demand of the landlord cannot be termed as illegal or unreasonable in absence of any agreement not to increase the cash rent. The fixed cash rent cannot remain in force, for all times to come, because the value of the produce of the land goes on varying from year to year. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, determination of the rent of the disputed land as one-third Batai, instead of cash rent at the rate of ` 60/- per annum is fully justified. Section 12 of the Land Tenures Act clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or usage, the maximum rent payable by a tenant for any land held by him shall not exceed one third of the crop of such land or the value thereof as determined in the prescribed manner. It is undisputed legal position that the Revenue Court is fully empowered to direct the tenant to execute the Qabuliyatnama/Pattanama, failing which he can be ordered to be evicted from the land under tenancy. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or perversity LPA No. 2246 of 2011 -5- in the orders, passed by the authorities below as well as the learned Single Judge. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 07, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE