IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 421 to 423 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 07.04.2011 Chaman Lal and others .... APPELLANTS Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 421 to 423 of 2011, in which common questions of facts and law are involved. These appeals have been directed against the order dated 12.1.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby three separate writ petitions (CWPs No. 9365 to 9367 of 2009) filed by the appellants, challenging the orders of the revenue authorities, upholding the ex-parte order of ejectment from three different pieces of agricultural land, passed against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as `the tenants'), have been dismissed. This is third round of litigation between the landlord and the tenants. In the first round, the landlord filed a suit for recovery of LPAs No. 421 to 423 of 2011 -2- arrears of rent and the said suit was decreed, which was upheld upto the High Court, vide order dated 26.4.2000, copy of which has been annexed by the landlord with his written statement as Annexure R-5/4. The second round of litigation started, when the landlord filed second suit for recovery of rent/Batai from Kharif 1991 to Kharif 1994 and for ejectment of the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent regularly without any sufficient cause. The said suit of the landlord was also decreed and an order of ejectment was passed against the tenants on 27.1.2001. The said order was again upheld upto the High Court, as the writ petition (CWP No. 16835 of 2003), filed by the tenants was dismissed vide order dated 8.12.2003, copy of which has been annexed by the landlord with his written statement as Annexure R-5/5. This is the third round of litigation. Since the tenants did not pay rent from Rabi 1997 to Rabi 2000, therefore, the landlord filed third suit for recovery of arrears of rent under Section 77 (n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and ejectment of the tenants under Section 77 (e) of the Act read with Section 9 (1) (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. The said suit was contested by the tenants. Ultimately, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur, while holding that the tenants have failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause, decreed the suit for recovery of the said rent. In spite of the finding recorded that the tenants have failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause, no specific order with regard to ejectment of the tenants was passed. LPAs No. 421 to 423 of 2011 -3- The tenants did not challenge the said order. However, the landlord filed an appeal against the said order, raising the grouse that in view of the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, his suit for ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent, should have been decreed. The tenants appeared in the said appeal and contested the same. In their presence, the Collector, Gurdaspur, vide his order dated 7.8.2003, allowed the said appeal, by passing the following order : “I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as of the respondents in person. From the perusal of the copy of order dated 23.1.2003 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner Appeal-I, there is no binding on this court to decide the appeal in question, as the learned Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, has only ordered the status quo in respect of land in dispute be maintained till further orders. From the perusal of the lower court file it is fully proved that the respondents wilfully not filed the written statements in spite of number of opportunities afforded to them, it means that the respondents have no cogent ground for documentary proof to contest their case. The learned lower court has rightly passed the decree for rent but in the ejectment case no order has been passed. To my mind if the decree of rent has been passed then the order regarding ejectment has also to be passed in detail, but in the instant case the learned lower court has not even touched this issue which needs to be discussed and then pass a detailed order of ejectment. I fully agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as prayed for and order o remand the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, LPAs No. 421 to 423 of 2011 -4- Gurdaspur, to decide all the claims mentioned in the ground of appeal within two months from the receipt of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur on 4.9.2003.” (Emphasis added) However, in terms of the aforesaid order, neither the tenants nor their counsel appeared before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 17.10.2003, 30.10.2003 and 12.11.2003 and ultimately, the case was decided ex-parte on 17.11.2003 and the order of ejectment was also passed against the tenants. For two years, the tenants did not challenge the above said order and thereafter, on 9.10.2005, they filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order. The said application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 19.10.2005. The said order was upheld by the Collector, Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner. The revenue authorities held that the appellants had appeared before the Collector and the case was remanded in their presence. Thus, they were fully aware of the fact that they had to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 4.9.2003, but in spite of having full knowledge of pendency of the case before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, they intentionally did not appear before it to contest the case. The orders of the revenue authorities were challenged in the aforesaid writ petitions and the learned Single Judge, while considering all the aspects of the case, has passed a detailed order, dismissing the writ LPAs No. 421 to 423 of 2011 -5- petitions and upholding the orders of the revenue authorities. Before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Bench, learned counsel for the tenants has made two-fold submissions. Firstly, that a day before passing of the order dated 7.8.2003, one of the tenants, namely Chaman Lal, was taken into custody, in connection with a criminal case, therefore, he could not appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on the date fixed, i.e. on 4.9.2003, and non-appearance of the tenants on the date fixed was for bonafide reason. Secondly, learned counsel argued that the summons issued to the tenants by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade were sent at wrong addresses, therefore, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade should have set aside the ex-parte order of ejectment. Learned Single Judge has rejected both the contentions, raised by learned counsel for the appellants, by giving detailed reasons. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in rejecting the aforesaid contentions. The appellants have not placed on record the application, filed by them for setting aside the ex-parte order of ejectment. However, from the perusal of the orders of the revenue authorities, it appears that no such plea that one of the tenants, namely Chaman Lal, was arrested and that notices to the tenants were sent on wrong addresses, was taken. Before the authorities, only it was pleaded that no notice was ever issued to the tenants. Even it has not been argued that when the Collector remanded the matter, none of the tenants or their counsel was present and the tenants were not aware that they LPAs No. 421 to 423 of 2011 -6- had to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 4.9.2003. It is also undisputed position that when the application for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order was filed, the arrears of rent were not paid. Rather, it was argued that the appellants have not failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. In the light of the aforesaid facts, if we consider both the contents raised by learned counsel for the appellants-tenants, the same appear to be not tenable, and appear to be after-thought, taken in order to defeat the just order, passed in favour of the landlord. Though there is no material on record, which may prove that one day before passing of the order dated 7.8.2003, one of the tenants, namely Chaman Lal, was arrested. Even it has not been stated as to when he was released from custody. Even if Chaman Lal was in custody, there were other tenants, who could have appeared before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, in terms of the remand order, passed by the Collector. Even if on one day, they could not appear, on the next date and subsequently, they could have appeared before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. But in the present case, for two years, they did not take any care. These facts clearly indicate that the tenants were fully aware of the proceedings and in spite of having the knowledge, they consciously did not appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, in order to frustrate the attempts of the landlord to get the order of ejectment on account of regularly non-payment of rent without sufficient cause. Secondly, as far as non-issuance of summons on the correct LPAs No. 421 to 423 of 2011 -7- addresses is concerned, no such plea was taken before the revenue authorities. It appears to have been taken in the writ for the first time. As per averments, made by the landlord in the written statement to the writ petition, which have not been denied by the tenants, the summons were duly served upon the tenants, but in spite of that, they did not appear. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge, while taking into consideration the conduct of the tenants and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Poddar and others v. Union Bank of India, 2008 (2) Supreme Court Cases 326, has rightly observed that what is relevant is that a party had a notice of a date of hearing and if the party had notice of the date of hearing, it is irrelevant whether service of summons was effected or not. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 07, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE