IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6882 of 1986 Date of decision : 08.11.2011. Mukhtiar Kaur and another ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN *** Present : Mr.Ankur Soni, Advocate, for Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. None for respondent Nos.6 to 8. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** K.KANNAN, J (Oral) The order in challenge is a rejection of a claim for ejectment by the landlord, who is a purchaser of the property and applied for a favourable order on the ground that the tenant had not paid the rent for crops Kharif 1981 and Rabi 1982. The tenant contended that he had not known about his purchase and after the petition was filed, the lease had been tendered. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Moga directed an eviction but the Distt. Collector & Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, affirmed the same. The Financial Commissioner set aside the order of eviction and accepted the claim of the tenant that there was a justification for non- payment. Learned counsel for the petitioners-landlord finds fault with the decision of the Commissioner by pointing out the fact that in the suit instituted by the tenant for injunction against his vendor in Civil Suit No.46 Civil Writ Petition No.6882 of 1986 -2- of 1981 and subsequent suit instituted against his vendor and himself in Civil Suit No.233 of 1981, the reference to the sale by his vendor had been specifically brought to the knowledge of the petitioner. The tenant, therefore, could not have feigned ignorance of the fact of sale and his liability to pay the rent. The mere fact that the landlord claimed as a purchaser cannot at all be a justification for securing ejectment by showing that the tenant had not paid the rent. The tenant is not required to take notice of such a sale unless subsequent purchaser demands an attornment from the tenant and if the tenant still would not recognize the purchase and would not pay the lease, a rightful action for eviction would lie. Mere reference to a transfer in action for injunction sought by a tenant would not do, if the tenant had paid the rent during the proceedings and if the Financial Commissioner found that he had a justification for non-payment to the purchaser-landlord who had not sought an attornment of tenancy. I would not find any fault with the Financial Commissioner order rejecting the plea of eviction. Tenant, who is cultivating the land and had paid the rent during the pendency of proceedings, is entitled to favourable consideration for Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and the Act must be so construed as not to make an ejectment possible for the mere fact of default. If the default in rent is explained and it was made up by actual tender, that ought to be taken as sufficient ground to accept the plea of the tenant and refuse landlord a right of eviction. 3. Resultantly, the order of the Financial Commissioner is affirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN ) November 08, 2011. JUDGE mamta