Civil Writ Petition No.11730 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11730 of 2008 Date of Decision:03.10.2011 Dalel Singh ......Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Sunil Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Shri Sanatan Dharam Pathshala, Jhajjar-respondent No.5, claiming itself to be owner/landlord(for brevity “the landlord”) of the land in dispute, moved an application, directing Dalel Singh son of Bhartu Singh-petitioner-tenant(for short “the tenant”) to execute the Qabuliatnama/Pattanama, in the prescribed form, pertaining to his tenancy and for fixation of the maximum rent payable by him, as determined in the prescribed manner, in respect of the land in question, invoking the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) and Section 12 of The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. The case set-up by the landlord, in brief, insofar as relevant was that, although the tenant has been cultivating the suit land at fixed lagan/very old rate of Rs.60 per annum, but since now there is a custom of providing 1/3rd share in the Civil Writ Petition No.11730 of 2008 2 produce(Batai-Tihai), so, he(tenant) is liable to pay 1/3rd share in the produce in this regard. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the landlord claimed that the tenant be directed to pay the Batai-Tihai and accordingly, to execute a Qabuliatnama/Pattanama and in case of his failure, he be ejected from the suit land in this context. 3. The tenant contested the claim of the landlord and filed the reply, inter alia, pleading that, he has been cultivating the land in question as a tenant, at a fixed annual rate of rent with mutual agreement of both the parties and the landlord is not entitled to 1/3rd share in produce, pertaining to his tenancy. It was claimed that since no Qabuliatnama between the parties was ever executed, so, the landlord cannot claim 1/3rd share in the produce(Batai-Tihai) in this connection and he prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The parties to the lis, in order to substantiate their respective pleas, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. After taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (respondent No.4), determined 1/3rd(Batai-Tihai) and directed the tenant to execute/submit Qabuliatnama, in regard to the payment of Batai-Tihai of the land in dispute, within a period of one month, failing which, order of ejectment was passed, by way of impugned order 20.05.2004(Annexure P/1). 5. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P/1) of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the tenant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Collector, Jhajjar(respondent No.3) by virtue of impugned order dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure P/2). 6. Again, dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P/2) of the Collector, the tenant filed the revision petition, which met with the same fate and was dismissed by The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak(respondent No.2), by means of impugned order dated 30.11.2006(Annexure P/3). The further second revision petition filed by him(tenant) was also dismissed by The Financial Commissioner, Civil Writ Petition No.11730 of 2008 3 Haryana, Chandigarh(respondent No.1), through the medium of impugned order dated 26.07.2007(Annexure P/4). 7. The petitioner-tenant still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders of the authorities below and preferred the present civil writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and legal provisions with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect. 9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the tenant was paying the rent in cash since long and now by executing the Qabuliatnama, he could not be directed to pay 1/3rd Batai-Tihai, under Section 9 of the Act, which amounts to increasing the rent, so, the authorities below committed a mistake in fixing 1/3rd Batai in respect of the tenancy in question, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 10. As is evident from the record that the landlord instituted the original application under Section 9(1)(vii) and Section 12 of the Act. Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act postulates that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no landowner shall be competent to eject a tenant except when such tenant refuses to execute a Qabuliyat of a Pata in the form prescribed, in respect of his tenancy, on being called upon to do so by an Assistant Collector on an application made to him for this purpose by the landowner. 11. Sequelly, Section 12 of the Act posits that notwithstanding anything contained in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, or any agreement or usage or any decree or order of a court, the maximum rent payable by a tenant for any land held by him as such shall not exceed one-third of the crop of such land or the value thereof as determined in the prescribed manner, and where the customary rent is less than one-third the maximum rent shall be such customary rent. Civil Writ Petition No.11730 of 2008 4 12. A conjoint reading of these provisions would reveal that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was well within his jurisdiction to direct the tenant, to execute the Qabuliatnama/Pattanama and to pay the rent in respect of the land in dispute, not exceeding 1/3rd of the crop of such land or the value thereof, as determined in the prescribed manner. This is what, the Assistant Collector has so determined, on the basis of existing customary of tenancy of District Jhajjar, in regard to the payment of 1/3rd produce(Batai-Tihai) to the landlord. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled. 13. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in case Om Parkash and others Versus State of Haryana and others, 1989 PLJ 378. Having interpreted the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) and Section 12 of the Act, it was ruled 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 written jurisdiction. Apart from the above, it was held in Guru Amarjit Singh V. Punjab State, 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.” Civil Writ Petition No.11730 of 2008 5 14. Therefore, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis- mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand and the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto-sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 15. To me, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade has scanned the evidence and legal provision in the right perspective and accepted the petition of the landlord, vide impugned order dated 20.05.2004(Annexure P/1). Not only that, the Appellate/Revisional Authorities have also affirmed the decision of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide impugned orders. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant connection. 17. Meaning thereby, the authorities below have recorded the cogent grounds in the impugned orders in this relevant behalf. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 18. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. October 03, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE