CWP No.6092 of 1987 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6092 of 1987 (O&M) Date of Decision:22.12.2011 Chanan Ram son of Ganga Ram, Goldsmith of village Bora P.S. and Tehsil Garhshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur. ... Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate and Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.S. Rapri, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? YES 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? YES K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petition was filed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 by the landlord seeking for arrears of rent for the years 1978 to 1982. The tenant contended that rent had been paid but the authorities held that rent was not proved to have been paid. The Financial Commissioner, however, held that Form 'N' requiring a tenant to pay within a month, had not been issued to the tenant and, therefore, he was providing for a CWP No.6092 of 1987 (O&M) [2] month's time to make the payment on pain being evicted, if compliance was not made. It is this order of the Financial Commissioner, which is in challenge before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that it was never the case of the tenant that Form 'N' had not been issued to the tenant requiring him to make the payment of arrears of rent within a particular period. In any event, this could not have made a difference in a case where the tenant was contending that he had already made the payment and that he was not liable to make any payment. The observations of the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order that Form 'N' had not been issued to the tenant as a justification for providing to him a further period of one month from the date of order was, therefore, unjustified. 3. It is a case where the landlord on failing to obtain an order of ejectment, has approached this Court in the year 1987 and and the case has been admitted on 15.09.1987. The counsel appearing for the tenant states that the direction contained in the order regarding payment of rent within one month had been complied with. 4. The relevant provision under Rule 22 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1956 requires to be reproduced: “22. Forms to be used for applications and notices mentioned in section 14-A of the Act- (1) A landowner desiring to eject a tenant, under clause (ii) to (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 9, read with section 14-A (i) of the Act shall, when applying to the Assistant Collector I Grade having jurisdiction, do so in writing in Form L. (2) A landowner desiring to recover the arrears of rent CWP No.6092 of 1987 (O&M) [3] from a tenant under section 14-A (ii) of the Act, shall apply to the Assistant Collector II Grade, having jurisdiction in notice Form M, and the Assistant Collector shall thereupon issue a notice to the tenant in Form N. (3) The notice to be served on the landlord under section 14-A (iii) (b) shall be in Form P.” It comprises of two parts namely one, that a landlord filing a petition under Section 14(A)(ii) for recovery of rent shall apply in Form 'M' and two, the Assistant Collector shall issue a notice to the tenant in Form 'N'. The duty is cast on the Assistant Collector to serve upon a tenant a particular form of notice directing the payment of rent with the consequences spelt thereon for non-compliance. If the authority himself observes that such a notice has not been sent, the landlord cannot contend that since the tenant had not taken up such a plea, the authority ought not to have provided for an opportunity to make the payment from the date of the order. I would find that the Act must be read in such a way as to protect the tenant from being evicted, if the rent is paid in the manner required by law. If a petition had been filed under Section 14A(i) for eviction, the proof of non-payment of rent would entail summary eviction. On the other hand, if the petition had been filed under Section 14A(ii) for rent, as in this case, eviction can not be ordered without affording to the tenant an opportunity to pay the rent within the prescribed time. If a specific notice shall be brought to the tenant as consequence on non-payment in a prescribed form and the authority himself would state that such notice has not been served, it should be taken on its face-value unless shown to be wrong. I having no materials before me to verify whether such notice had actually been delivered to the tenant. CWP No.6092 of 1987 (O&M) [4] In any event, it will be grossly inequitable to allow for eviction at this stage where pursuant to the order of the Financial Commissioner, the rent is also stated to have been paid. 5. The order of the Financial Commissioner is maintained and the writ petition is dismissed. DECEMBER 22, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE