Maan Singh & Ors. v. Financial Commissioner (R) Haryana & Ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present:- Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Mr. D. Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondents no. 1 to 4. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for respondent no. 5. LPA No. 917 of 2012 3 G. S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Vide this present order, which is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.01.2012, seven connected Letters Patent Appeals shall be disposed of. For reference, facts are being taken up from LPA No. 917 of 2012 arising out of CWP No.18250 of 1994

2. The deceased writ petitioner, who was a tenant, was ordered to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of the batai since 1986 vide order dated 30.11.1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kurukshetra. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kurukshetra noticed that the tenant had taken the defence that the batai had been paid and had placed reliance upon the receipts which bore revenue stamps. Since initially the case had been dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 29.03.1990 and two applications had been accepted by the Collector vide his order dated

30.06.1990, who had remanded the case with the direction that a report be taken from the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the records of the revenue Courts below, the report of the expert was that the revenue stamps were of the year 1988 whereas the receipts were prepared for the years 1986-87 and the revenue stamps of the year 1988 were pasted on them. Accordingly, the defence of the appellant-tenant was rejected and the eviction was ordered. This order was upheld in appeal on 25.01.1991 by the Collector, Kurukshetra and by the revisional authorities i.e. Commissioner, Ambala Division on 22.07.1992 and by the Financial Commissioner on

03.10.1994.

3. The plea taken before the Financial Commissioner was that the petitioner was ready to deposit the entire rent amount of `5,400/- and, LPA No. 917 of 2012 4 therefore, the default should be condoned in making the payment of rent. The said plea was not accepted.

4. In the writ petition, reliance was placed upon the proviso of Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Lands Tenures Act, 1953 (for short 'The Act') to contend that an opportunity should have been given by the Assistant Collector to deposit the arrears to avoid ejectment.

5. The same was refuted by filing written statement that once the tenants had taken the plea that the lease money had actually been paid and placed reliance upon the forged and fabricated receipts, there was no question of the Assistant Collector directing the petitioner to make the payment instead of passing the ejectment order. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petitions of the present appellants by holding that the earlier petitions were filed in 1970 for different periods of arrears of rent. Earlier Mohitmim Inder Parkash had moved an application for being impleaded and, therefore, was entitled to file the fresh application. Accordingly, it was held that the tenant could not deny the relationship of landlord and tenant. The writ Court also held that voluminous evidence had been produced that the receipts were forged and upheld the ejectment on the ground that no defect in the procedure had been pointed out which may prejudice the rights of the petitioners with regard to the finding of fact that the petitioners are in arrears of rent. No infirmity could be pointed out in the order of the learned Single Judge.

6. However, counsel for the appellant submitted that proviso to Section 14-A(i) of the Act provided that an opportunity should be given to the erring tenant to deposit the rent to save himself from eviction. The proviso to Section 14-A(i) of the Act was added by the Amending Act No. 5 LPA No. 917 of 2012 5 of 1991 which reads as under:- “Provided that if the tenant makes payment of arrears and interest to be calculated by the Assistant Collector Grade First Grade at eight per centum per annum on such arrears together with such costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, either on the day first hearing or within 15 days from the date of such hearing, he shall not be evicted.”

7. A perusal of the said proviso would go on to show, which was inserted in the year 1991, that the Assistant Collector would grant this benefit only if the tenant made the payment of arrears and interest @ 8% per annum alongwith costs on the first day of hearing or within 15 days from the date of such hearing and would not be evicted. The said proviso is firstly meant to save the genuine tenant from eviction in cases where rent has not been paid inadvertently or due to reasons beyond his control and not for denying rent to the landlord.

8. In the present case, the tenant had taken a false defence that the rent had been paid and reliance had been placed on the receipts which were found to be forged by the revenue authorities since the stamps pasted were of the subsequent years. Once the tenant had taken such a risk, he could not, now, turn around and take the plea that he had sufficient cause for not making the deposit at the first date of hearing. Even otherwise, the amendment came into force from the year 1991 and the order of ejectment was passed on 30.11.1990 i.e. prior to the amendment and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to pass such an order. LPA No. 917 of 2012 6 Counsel for the appellant could not point out any provision in the proviso that the said proviso would also be applicable to pending applications and the benefit could be given in appeal or in revision or further in writ jurisdiction. The purpose of the proviso is clear that the delay in deposit is to be condoned at the first instance only and no premium can be given to the tenant who takes a false plea. Thus, in the facts and circumstances on both the counts, the submission of the counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of proviso of Section 14- A(i).

9. Accordingly, all the seven Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge

09.11.2012 shivani/sailesh (Rajive Bhalla) Judge