IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 9429 of 2006 Date of Decision: December 23, 2011 Murti Mandir Sita Ramji Vakia Talab Bahadur Singhji Narnaul. …Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. P.N. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 to 9. Paramjeet Singh, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing judgment and decree dated 17.08.1998 (Annexures P/3 and P/4) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul, judgment and decree dated 06.04.1999 (Annexures P/5 and P/6) passed by the Collector, order dated 26.07.2002 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Commissioner and order dated 28.03.2005 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Financial Commissioner and prayer is for ejectment of respondent Nos. 5 to 9 from the land in question. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of the agricultural land measuring 7 Bighas 9 Biswas CWP No.9429 of 2006 comprised in Khasra Nos. 2686 (4 Bighas 4 Biswas) and 2690 (3 Bighas 5 Biswas), situated in Narnaul Town, District Mohindergarh. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had leased out the agricultural land on year to year basis on payment of annual rent to one Parbhu and Narain sons of Mohan, residents of Narnaul, District Mohindergarh. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a civil suit which was compromised vide Annexure P/1 and in pursuance to that compromise, order dated 28.07.1986 (Annexure P/2) was passed. Now, petitioner filed a suit on 21.04.1994 against respondent Nos. 5 to 8, who are the legal heirs of Prabhu, and respondent No.9 Narain for ejectment of the respondents on the ground that they did not pay the rent for one year regarding the crops from Kharif 2049 to Rabi 2050 (1993-94 A.D.) and for cutting down the valuable standing trees from the land in question and thereby diminished the value of the land in question. In that suit, respondents were summoned and respondent Nos. 5 to 9 filed their written statement. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 had stated in their written statement that they had been cultivating the land prior to 1956 from the time of their ancestors. It is the case of the respondents that the compromise (Annexure P/1) had been rightly considered by the authorities under the Revenue Act. It is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had misused the compromise as a clever device. They have further stated that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are valid one and concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by all the authorities. 2 CWP No.9429 of 2006 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question falls in District Narnaul which is governed by the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Act). In view of Section 51 of the Pepsu Act, this land is exempted from the applicability of the provisions of the Pepsu Act as the property is owned by the petitioner which is a Mandir and religious / charitable institution. So, the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act) will apply. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 41 of the Punjab Act is applicable which defines three types of tenants – (i) occupancy tenant, (ii) tenant for fixed term, and (iii) tenant at will on year to year basis. There is no concept of perpetual tenancy or tenancy from generation to generation under the Punjab Act. So, respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are only tenants at will on year to year basis on payment of annual rent, as such, they can be ejected by way of suit under Section 77(2)(d) of the Punjab Act. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9 rebutted the contention of the petitioner by submitting that respondent Nos. 5 to 9 and their predecessor-in-interest were tenants prior to 1956. As such, they cannot be evicted. I have considered the rival contentions and am of the view that in the present case, provisions of Pepsu Act will not apply, rather, provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Act will apply. As there is no provision of perpetual tenancy under the Punjab Act, respondents cannot claim perpetual tenancy. The tenancy will be 3 CWP No.9429 of 2006 deemed to be on year to year basis. The fact is immaterial that the tenancy is prior to 1956. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 can be evicted as per the provisions of the Punjab Act. It is also matter of record that the present suit is for non-payment of rent for the period from Kharif Sammat 2049 to Rabi Sammat 2050 (1993-94 A.D.). This is admitted on record that rent has not been paid for this period. It is also brought on record that trees have been cut from the land in question and as a result of which the value of the property has been diminished. So, I am of the view that the respondents are liable to be evicted for non-payment of rent. This is not an only or first default. Earlier too, the petitioner had filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. The said suit was ultimately compromised in view of the statements of the parties. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the authorities have decided against the petitioner only on the ground that the statement had been made on 28.07.1986 (Annexure P/1) in the earlier proceedings for eviction against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this compromise was qua the earlier suit only and not for all times to come. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the authorities are wrong to the effect that the compromise clearly indicates that the respondents will be deemed to be tenants for all times to come and can never be evicted. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is nowhere mentioned in the compromise before the Assistant Collector First Grade that parties had agreed not to resort to further litigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the compromise is 4 CWP No.9429 of 2006 applicable for future also and the petitioner is debarred from filing any suit. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. Annexure P/1 is the statement of Prabhu Dayal, Narain and Rajinder Parsad, Advocate, the same reads as under:- “Stated that our compromise has been effected with the plaintiff. According to the compromise, land has been surrendered to the plaintiff from the bank of the stream to the edge of the Dharamshala and from Ankri to the path of the well for construction of Dharamshala. The rent of the remaining agricultural land has been settled at 400/- per annum which we shall continue paying to the plaintiff and the remaining land will be cultivated as tenants. We are old tenants. No rent is due till date.” The reading of statement by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and Narain makes it clear that the compromise was qua the proceedings in the earlier suit. It nowhere states that parties will not resort to further litigation nor this compromise confer any permanent tenancy rights on the private respondents. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not sustainable, rather the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is sustainable. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Since the private respondents are the chronic defaulters, they are ordered to be evicted from the land in question and the impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner may proceed to recover the rent in accordance with law. 5 CWP No.9429 of 2006 December 23, 2011 ( Paramjeet Singh ) vkd Judge 6