CWP No. 2625 of 1983 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2625 of 1983 (O&M) Date of decision : 01.6.2011 Nikka Ram (deceased) through LRs ...Petitioner vs The Financial Commissioner Punjab, and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. R. L. Batta, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. S. Saggi, Advocate, for respondent nos. 3 to 13. Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The petitioner- landowner has filed the present petition in this court challenging the order dated 5.5.1983 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, in Revenue Original Revision No. 187 of 1982-83, filed by the respondents-tenants, wherein liberty was given to the respondents-tenants to approach the competent authority for redelivery of possession of the land in dispute to them on account of the fact that the Financial Commissioner found that the tenants had paid the amount of arrears of decretal amount of rent, cost and interest within the time prescribed or extended. 2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of ` 4,276.85 being 1/3rd batai of crops from Rabi 1968 to Kharif 1970 relating to land measuring 30 bighas 6 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Chirvi, Sub-Tehsil Dhudan Sadhan, Tehsil and District Patiala on 20.5.1976, which was decided on 7.7.1976. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala, directed that the respondents-tenant to pay ` 4,276.85 to the CWP No. 2625 of 1983 (2) petitioner as 1/3rd share of crops for Rabi 1968 to Kharif 1970 along with costs, within six months from the day of the order otherwise, they were to be ejected from the land in dispute. 3. The tenants preferred appeal before the Collector, Patiala, which was dismissed on 28.2.1979. The revision filed before the Commissioner challenging the order passed by the Collector was also dismissed on 27.10.1980. Still further, the tenants filed Revenue Original Revision No. 7 of 1980-81 before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. The Financial Commissioner though did not find any merit in the revision and dismissed the same vide order dated 18.2.1982, however, he directed for payment of rent due within two months from the date of order i.e. 18.2.1982, failing which the tenants were liable for ejectment. 4. The tenants having not complied with the order dated 7.7.1976 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the petitioner-landowner filed execution petition on 20.11.1978. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide order dated 7.6.1982, clarified that the tenants were not liable to pay only the decretal amount rather costs and interest as well. Considering the fact that the tenants were illiterate persons and being unable to understand import of the order, he granted 15 days more time to deposit the amount due as mentioned in the order. On failure to do so, they were liable for ejectment. 5. The Collector in appeal filed by the petitioner-landowner vide order dated 28.10.1982, set aside the order dated 7.6.1982 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade granting further time for deposit of the decretal amount as it was found that he was bound to execute the order as it is. He could not extend the time. The revision filed by the tenants against the aforesaid order was dismissed on 8.12.1982. In Revenue Original Revision No. 187 of 1982-83 filed by the tenants before the Financial Commissioner, it was found that the tenants had deposited a sum of ` 4,276.85 in the Treasury on 12.5.1981, which was in compliance of the interim order passed by the Financial Commissioner and the order having been complied with, the ejectment could not be ordered. He further noticed that the amount of costs and interest of ` 2,351/- had also been paid by the CWP No. 2625 of 1983 (3) tenants on 21.6.1982. He further noticed that direction issued by him in his earlier order dated 18.2.1982 for payment of amount of rent within two months was complied with as the amount deposited in the Treasury was directed to be released to the petitioner on 16.4.1982. Finally noticing the fact that the possession of the land having already taken by the petitioner- landowner on 8.1.1983, the tenants were given liberty to approach the competent authority for redelivery of possession of the land in dispute to them. It is against this order dated 5.5.1983 that the petitioner-landowner has approached this court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') provides that tenancy can be terminated in case the tenants fail to pay the rent within a period of six months after it falls due. It further provides that the tenants can not be ejected unless he has been afforded an opportunity to pay the arrears of rent within a further period of six months from the date of decree or order directing his ejectment and he has failed to pay such arrears during that period. The submission was that vide order dated 7.7.1976 the tenants were directed to pay the arrears of rent, costs and interest. The amount was required to be paid within six months in case the ejectment was to be saved. The same having not been paid within the prescribed period given in the statute, any order passed by the Financial Commissioner or any other authority extending the time is totally illegal as no authority is vested in him to extend the time which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. He further submitted that undisputed facts on record are that the rent was deposited by the tenants in the court only on 12.5.1981, that too, without cost and interest. 7. The costs and interest were paid only on 21.6.1982 which was even beyond the period granted by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 18.2.1982 whereby two months' time was granted to pay the rent due. He further submitted that the direction issued by the Financial Commissioner to pay the rent would mean entire arrears of rent up to date, as it was a concession granted by the Financial Commissioner to the tenants, otherwise the statute did not permit him to extend the period CWP No. 2625 of 1983 (4) prescribed to make the payment of rent after an order of eviction had been passed on account of its non-payment. It is also for the reason that the Financial Commissioner was well aware of the fact that in terms of the interim order dated 12.5.1981, the tenants had already deposited the decretal amount of rent of ` 4,276.85 and on the date when the order was passed on 18.2.1982, no rent as such was due. As far as order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 7.7.1976 is concerned, the tenants having not cleared the entire rent due up to the date of the passing of the order, there can possibly be no direction for redelivery of the possession to the tenants. 8. In support of his plea that the time prescribed for payment of arrears of rent could not be extended and that the entire rent would mean up to date amount of arrears, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this court in Gurmej Singh and others vs The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 34. 9. Still further the submission was that the tenants in the present case were habitual defaulter. They did not pay rent subsequently even for the period Hari 1978 to Sawni 1980 for which another petition was filed on 16.6.1981, which was decided on 25.7.1983, in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The amount of rent of ` 7,915.38 was required to be paid in installments. On failure the tenants were liable to be ejected. The submission was that the tenants did not comply with that order. They filed review petition which was dismissed on 22.11.1985 but neither the order was complied with nor any further appeal against the same was filed. The amount was deposited by the tenants only on 14.3.2006 in terms of the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 10.3.2006. There being non-compliance and even the period having not been extended, the tenants were liable to the evicted on that account. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, giving liberty to the tenants to get the possession revived as the arrears of rent, interest and costs having been paid and earlier order having been complied with, is liable to be set aside. CWP No. 2625 of 1983 (5) 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenants-respondents submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 7.7.1976 was challenged by the tenants in appeal before the Collector, on failure in revision before the Commissioner and further Revenue Original Revision was filed before the Financial Commissioner against the order of the Commissioner rejecting the revision. During the pendency of these proceedings as stay order in favour of the tenants was in operation, they were not required to deposit the amount of rent, interest or costs as directed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide order dated 7.7.1976. The tenants deposited the amount of rent on 12.5.1981 when it was so directed by the Financial Commissioner by way of interim order. 11. As far as the deposit of amount of costs is concerned, the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 7.7.1976 and the Financial Commissioner's earlier order dated 18.2.1982 clarified by him on 5.5.1983 was referred to show that the direction was only for payment of decretal amount of rent and not the costs. The amount of rent, in fact, was paid to the petitioner-landowner within two months of the passing of the order on 18.2.1982 as the same was directed to be paid to the petitioner-landowner on 16.4.1982 after the same was deposited in the Treasury on 12.5.1981. Even the amount of interest and costs as directed by the Financial Commissioner was deposited on 21.6.1982. Relying upon judgment of this court in Shrimati Gita Devi vs The Financial Commissioner Haryana and others 1987 PLJ 265, it was submitted that the period provided for payment of rent under the Act can very well be extended. The appellate or revisional authority has the power for extension of time if there was interim stay regarding the eviction. 12. As regards the second round of litigation pertaining to arrears of rent from Hari 1978 to Sawni 1980 is concerned, it was submitted that though the amount of rent for that period was not paid in terms of the agreed order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 25.7.1983. However, the same having been paid subsequently on 14.3.2006, the order stood complied with and even on that default, the tenants could not be evicted. CWP No. 2625 of 1983 (6) 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. 14. The undisputed facts on record are that the petitioner- landowner sought eviction of the tenants on account of non-payment of rent for Rabi 1968 to Kharif 1970 of ` 4,276.85. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide his order dated 7.7.1976 directed for payment of the aforesaid amount along with costs within a period of six months from the date of order otherwise the tenants were to face ejectment. The order was upheld in appeal and revision by the Collector and Commissioner respectively. However, the Financial Commissioner in Revenue Original Revision No. 7 of 1980-81 filed by the tenants while upholding the order passed by the authorities below granted two months time vide order dated 18.2.1982 to make the payment of rent due. No doubt, it is claimed by the tenants that during the pendency of the appeal and revision before the authorities there was interim stay in their favour and on account of that they did not deposit the amount of rent, however, as per the interim order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 12.5.1981, they deposited the amount of ` 4,276.85 on 12.5.1981 but did not deposit the costs. In execution petition filed by the petitioner-landowner seeking ejectment of the tenants on account of non-compliance of the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, vide order dated 7.6.1982, the tenants were granted 15 days more time to deposit the amount of rent along with costs and interest. The aforesaid order was set aside in appeal filed by the petitioner-landowner. The revision filed by the tenants was dismissed. However, in Revenue Original Revision, the Financial Commissioner clarified that vide his earlier order dated 18.2.1982, he had directed for payment of decretal amount only and not the costs and interest. The amount having been deposited by the tenants on 12.5.1981, as per the interim order passed by him earlier and the same having been paid to the petitioner-landowner on 16.4.1982 the order was fully complied with. The costs was not directed to be paid. However, the costs and interest were deposited by the tenants on 21.6.1982, the tenants could not be evicted. However, considering the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, the tenants had been evicted CWP No. 2625 of 1983 (7) on 8.1.1983, they were given liberty to take the possession back. It may be noticed here that in Revenue Original Revision filed by the tenants before the Financial Commissioner interim stay of dispossession was granted on 27.1.1983 till 1.2.1983. This was a revision against the order passed by the Commissioner upholding the eviction vide order dated 8.12.1982. The order directing ejectment was passed on 7.7.1976 and prior to the passing of the order by the Financial Commissioner, the landlord had already taken the possession of the land. 15. Another round of litigation, the facts regarding which are not in dispute are that a fresh petition seeking ejectment of the tenants on account of non-payment of arrears of rent from Hari 1978 to Sawni 1980 of ` 7,915.38 was filed which was decreed in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties on 25.7.1983 whereby the arrears were to be paid in installments. The review petition filed by the tenants against the same was dismissed. Still the tenants did not pay the aforesaid amount in terms of the agreed order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The aforesaid amount was paid by the tenants only on 14.3.2006. It is in the aforesaid admitted factual matrix that the claim of the parties is to be considered. 16. As far as first round of litigation is concerned, while decreeing the petition filed by the petitioner-landowner, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide order dated 7.7.1976 directed for payment of rent along with costs and interest within six months. The aforesaid order was not complied with by the tenants within the prescribed period as it is claimed by them that there was interim stay in appeal or revision before the authorities. Only the amount of rent was paid on 12.5.1981 though the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 18.2.1982 while dismissing the Revenue Original Revision filed by the tenants extended the period further by two months against which the stand of the petitioner-landowner is that firstly the aforesaid period could not be extended and secondly still the order was not complied with even in the extended period the tenants did not deposit the amount of costs. Further entire arrears upto date were required to be paid and not only the decretal amount, the same being concession given by the Financial Commissioner. CWP No. 2625 of 1983 (8) 17. For the time being, I do not deem it appropriate to deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties on the issue as to whether the period of six months could be extended or not or as to whether the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was complied with in its letter and spirit or not. The facts on record subsequent thereto clearly justify the eviction of the tenants from the land in dispute, namely the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 25.7.1983 directing for eviction of the tenants in case the amount of arrears for the period from Hari 1978 to Sawni 1980 was not paid in terms of the agreed order passed. It is not disputed by the tenants that the aforesaid order was not complied with within the prescribed time as agreed between the parties, rather the amount was paid on 14.3.2006. It is also not in dispute that even if there is power vested in appellate or revisional authority for extending the period prescribed for payment of arrears of rent, there is no such order passed in favour of the tenants. Even otherwise it is totally obnoxious to plead for extension of time for payment of arrears of rent for a period of two decades as the amount of arrears was paid on 14.3.2006. The stand of the tenants that the amount paid later having been accepted by the petitioner-landowner should be considered as condoning the period of delay, is totally misconceived as on default the petitioner-landowner had become entitled to take possession of the land. The eviction does not take away the right of the landlord to recover the rent for the period the tenants enjoyed the possession of the land. Mere acceptance of the money at a later time will not mean that the period of default stood condoned. 18. For the reasons mentioned above, I find merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the direction issued by the Financial Commissioner in its order dated 5.5.1983 giving liberty to the tenants to get the possession of the property revived is set aside. 19. The writ petition stands disposed of. 01.6.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge