Gian Chand and ors. Vs. the Financial Commissioner and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- g.s. singhvi, j.1. by this order, we are disposing of two letters patent appeals filed against the order of the learned single judge dated 1.6.1993 dismissing civil writ petition nos. 9572 of 1987 and 4271 of 1986 filed by the appellants.l.p.a. no. 586/93:2. agricultural land measuring 120 kanals 9 marlas situated in village darra khurd, tehsil thanesar, district kurukshetra was leased out by the predecessors of the private respondents kishan chand and others to shri vasandha ram (father of the appellants gian chand, des raj and has raj) and another on fixed rent of rs. 800/- per annum along with 2.1/2 maunds of fruit. on 10.6.1974, the land owners filed an application under section 9(1)(vii) of the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953 (for short the 1953 act) for directing the tenants to give 1/3rd of the crop to the applicants or to execute the qabuliyat nama for rs. 500/per acre per year under rule 9 of the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1953 rules) in form 'c appended thereto. that application was contested by the tenants who pleaded that the 'qabuliyat nama' cannot be executed on the terms set out by the land owners but they were prepared to execute a qabuliyat nama at the agreed fixed rent. after considering the evidence of the parties and the statement made by the counsel appearing for the land owners, the special collector ordered the tenants to execute a qabuliyat nama in favour of the applicants from rabi 1974 at 1/3rd batai within three months from the date of his order. he also ordered that 1/3rd 'batai' shall be fixed according to section 9 of the act read with rule 9 of the 1953 rules. after unsuccessfully challenging the order of the special collector before the collector, kurukshetra, the divisional commissioner and the financial commissioner, who dismissed the appeal and the revision filed by them. vasandha ram and the other tenants filed civil writ petition no. 1205 of 1982 which was dismissed by a division bench on 16.3.1982. paragraph 5 of the order passed by the division bench (reported in 1982 p.l.j. 453) reads as under:-'the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in proceedings under section 9(1)(vii) of the act, the collector can only order the tenant to execute a qabuliyat nama without denoting the rate of rent; that this qabuliyat nama has to clearly mention that the rate of rent shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the act which will be determined in separate proceedings, has not commended itself to us. the determination of rate of rent on which the qabuliyat nama has to be executed is inherent in the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the act. unless the amount of rent is determined, the special collector cannot ask the tenant to execute the qabuliyat nama at an appropriate rate of rent. in the absence of the mention of the rate of rent, the purpose of execution of the qabuliyat nama will be frustrated. to require the parties to file separate proceedings for execution of the qabuliyat nama, and for determining the rent which is to be paid by the tenant will be clearly against the public policy. multiplicity of the proceedings has to be eschewed.'3. petition for special leave to appeal(c) no. 3854 of 1982, vasandha ram v. state of haryana, was also dismissed by the supreme court on 14.4.1982.4. after one year and two months of the dismissal of the petition for special leave to appeal, vasandha ram and his sons des raj filed an application under section 14-a(iii) of the 1953 act read with section 31 of the punjab tenancy act, 1887 before the assistant collector grade-i, thanesar and prayed that respondents-kishan chand etc. be summoned and they be given batai and the applicants be given the receipt. they also prayed that if the respondents (kishan chand and ors.) refuse to receive the batai, it be deposited in the treasury. in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application, the tenants made the following averments:-'that the applicants requested the respondents many times to receive batai of the disputed crop, rabi 1983 and to give receipt thereof to the applicants but the respondents refused to take batai and give the receipt. hence the need for applicants to file this application. previously also, the respondents did not receive the batai in accordance with the rules, due to which the batai of every crop had to be deposited.3. that the applicants have filed an application for preparation of the goshwara of the disputed crops, which goshwara has not been prepared as yet. upon the preparation of the goshwara, the applicants shall submit it and shall deposit whatever batai comes to the respondents share. that application was dismissed by the assistant collector grade-ii, thanesar to whom it has been transferred for adjudication. vasandha ram and des raj did not challenge the order dated 27.3.1984 by filing an appeal and revision. therefore, the order dated 27.3.1984 passed by the assistant collector grade ii will be deemed to have become final between the parties.'5. in the meanwhile, the respondents kishan chand ant others filed an application under rule 22 of the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 rules') read with section 14-a(i) of the 1953 act as amended by punjab act no. xi of 1955 for ejectment of the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent for rabi 1983 without any sufficient cause and the batai for the earlier crops. the averments made in para 7.1. of that application read as under: -'7. reasons for ejecting the tenant (score out the reasons that do not apply.1. the tenant has failed to pay rent the tenants have not paid theregularly without sufficient cause. rent for rabi 1983 in spite of repeated demands and without any sufficient cause and the batai for the earlier crops is also in arrears. the tenants do not make payment of batai intentionally.'in para 7 and 7(i) of the written statement, des raj and vasandha ram averred as under:-'that the contents of para 7 are wrong and hence denied. all the rent from 1974 to 1983 has either been paid or an application for the payment of the same has been filed. no rent is due and the applicants do not take the rent at the time and want to get the land vacated by troubling the respondents and are filing repeated false applications.7(i) that the contents of para 7(i) are wrong and hence denied. the respondents have never denied to pay the rent but the applicants have rather refused to take the same. besides this, the proceedings have been going on for the enhancement of the rent of the land and for the execution of the qabuliyat nama. the rate of rent for this land earlier was rs. 800/- per year in total which the respondents have been paying regularly but later on the applicants wanted 1/3rd share of the crop and refused to accept the rent in the application filed by the second party-respondents and for that purpose filed a suit in which suit the appeal proceedings between the parties continued upto the supreme court and after finalisation of the same, the respondents filed an application before the assistant collector 2nd grade, thanesar for depositing of the batai. the applicants have been creating various difficulties and have been delaying the same. the delay in non-payment is due to the applicants themselves. the respondents have always been ready for payments and even before filing of the present proceedings, they had filed an application under section 14-a(iii) before the special collector.'6. shri vasandha ram appeared in the witness box to support the assertion made in the written statement. in the examination-in-chief he made the following statement:-'it is stated that i am cultivating the land in dispute on 1/3rd batai as a tenant under the applicants for the last 30 years. we were cultivating the land in dispute even prior to the purchase of the same by the applicants. earlier the theka for the entire land was rs. 800/- per year for rabi, 1983 crop. we asked the applicants to accept the batai but they refused to accept. we filed an application before the tehsildar for depositing the batai. the land-owners raised objections upon which , the said proceedings were stayed. we were earlier also ready to make the payment of batai and are ready even now to make the payment. the earlier suits have been filed for non-payment of rent for the earlier crops. the said suits of the applicants have been dismissed. i have seen the applications in summoned file in which i and des raj have signed the certified copy of the same in exh. r-l. xx xx xx xx xx xx'however, in the cross examination, he stated that:-'i have given written notice to the owners for accepting the rent. a copy of the said notice is not with me. i do not have any receipt of the registered letter. i have not got done any qankoot (assessment) for the crop of rabi 1983 to the effects as how much was the crop.i do not remember that the application filed by me for depositing the rent had been dismissed on 27.3.1984. a copy of the said order is ex.rw-1/a. i have not deposited till this day the rent for rabi 1983 but i have filed the proceedings. i did not remember whether i had appeared or not in the suit filed by the owners for the crop rabi 1983. it is correct that i have not paid any rent from 1974 till this day for any crop to the owners nor have deposited the same in any court but i have filed proceedings for depositing the same. it is correct that my proceedings for depositing the rent have been dismissed by the financial commissioner but i have filed an appeal in the high court. i do not have any paper or stay of the high court.'7. after considering the pleadings, evidence and arguments of the parties, the assistant collector grade-i, kurukshetra allowed the application filed by the land owners by recording the following observations:-'i have heard the arguments of the learned counsel of both the parties and have carefully perused all the evidence tendered in the arguments and brought on the file. in his cross-examination, rw-1 has confessed that he has not deposited the batai of rabi 1983 till date. he has also agreed that it is correct that he has not paid the batai of any crop to the owners from 1974 till date nor has he deposited any batai in court. contrarily he has filed suits for depositing of batai. it is correct that his suits concerning depositing of batai have been dismissed by the financial commissioner but appeal has been filed in the high court. he does not have any paper or document of stay of the high court. the scrutiny of rw-1/a, copy of the order dated 27.3.1984. vasandha ram v. kishan chand, through which the respondents filed application for depositing of batai obviate the fact that this application under section 14-a(iii) of the respondent was dismissed by the assistant collector iii grade, thanesar. as a fact, this proves that the respondents have knowingly done this and they had the intention of not giving the batai. against this order they have not gone in appeal. revenue record, ex.a.2, a.3 establish the relation of owner and tenants between the parties and the respondents have cultivated the suit land as giar maurusi tenants on one third batai for rabi 1983 and crops prior to that. the batai of these crops and that of the crop rabi 1983 has not been paid by the respondents to the petitioners without sufficient cause.'8. the appeal filed by vasandha ram and des raj was dismissed by the collector, kurukshetra who expressed his concurrence with the assistant collector in the following words:-'after having heard the argument of the counsel for the parties and having perused the record fully well, i have reached the conclusion that the appellants (respondents) have no reason for not to pay the batai of the disputed crop because the application filed by them under section 14-a(iii) has already been decided by a competent court, according to its merits. the tenants did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order dated 27.3.1984 of the assistant collector grade-ii, thanesar, and this order is final. the tenants (respondents) cannot be given any benefit of the dismissed (applications). the appellants (respondents) have not paid any thing to the owners of the land from rabi 1974, till date nor have they deposited any rent according to the rules whereas the owners of the land have also filed suits for recovery. as such, the behaviour of the appellants (respondents) does not appear to be correct and good. without any sufficient cause, a tenant is liable to be legally ejected even on an affidavit. hence not finding any specific force in the present appeal, i dismiss it and affirm the order under appeal.'9. in the revision application filed by des raj and vasandha ram, the commissioner, ambala division recommended to the financial commissioner to accept the plea set up by the tenants but the latter upheld the order of ejectment and dismissed the revision petition on 24.11.1984. in that order, the financial commissioner reiterated the conclusion recorded by the assistant collector and the collector that the conduct of the tenants shows total lack of seriousness on their part in depositing batai. he also relied on the decision of the supreme court in mrs. raj kanta v. the financial commissioner, punjab and anr., 1980 p.l.j. 346 to sustain the findings of fact recorded by the lower authorities.10. in civil writ petition no. 9572 of 1987 filed by gian chand and his brothers for quashing the orders passed by the assistant collector, grade-ii, thanesar, the collector, kurukshetra and the financial commissioner respectively, the following two contentions were urged:-(i) that non-payment of rent can lead to the eviction of the tenant only when it is proved that it was without sufficient cause.(ii) that view taken by the respondents that the amount of money which was to be paid to the landlord having not been indicated in the application filed by the petitioners on june 14, 1983 (the plea taken by them was incorrect) cannot be sustained because no proforma has been prescribed for submission of application by tenant though under rule 22 of 1956 rules a proforma has been prescribed for an application to be submitted by the landlord.11. the learned single judge (j.l. gupta, j.) rejected both the contentions and dismissed the writ petition. the reasons spelt out in the order of the learned single judge are extracted hereunder-'the short question that arises for consideration in this case is - did the present petitioners (originally their father vasandha ram) have a sufficient cause for not depositing the rent? he had appeared as rw-1. during the course of the proceedings before the assistant collector 1st grade, kurukshetra, his statement was recorded on oath. during the course of examination, he categorically admitted that 'i have not paid any rent from 1974 till this date for any crop to the owners nor have deposited the same in any court but i have filed proceedings for depositing the same. it is correct that my proceedings for depositing the rent have been dismissed by the financial commissioner ...' it is thus clear that the default complained of by the respondent-landlords is not the solitary ground. in fact, the tenants have not paid any rent since the year 1974. consequently, it is apparent that they have failed 'to deposit rent regularly . . . . ' have they shown any cause for this continuous default?a perusal of section 9 shows that a tenant is bound to pay rent regularly. if he makes a default, he must show sufficient cause therefore. in the present case, it is apparent that the petitioners have not paid any rent since the year 1974. it is thus a case where the tenants are not guilty of a single default only for which they may have a sufficient cause. in fact, they are guilty of a series of defaults and apparently no cause whatsoever much less than a sufficient cause has been shown therefore.mr. kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the conduct of the tenants has been absolutely fair and bonafide. an application had been filed before the date on which the rent was finally due to that the court could direct the landlords to accept the rent. he also submits that even in the previous years, similar applications had been made. it is thus clear that the petitioners were not actually trying to pay the rent to the landlords. an effort had in fact been made to avoid payment. the application was only a pretext to avoid payment. it was a device being adopted so as to deprive the landlords of what was rightfully due to them. it is also the admitted position that like the application in the present case, even the earlier applications filed by the petitioners of their predecessors-in-interest were continuously dismissed. taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration that the petitioners had failed to pay the rent regularly and that they have not been able to prove the existence of any cause whatsoever much less than a sufficient cause for the default which was the subject matter of the present proceedings before the revenue authorities.it is no doubt correct that the rules do not prescribe any particular form in which a tenant has to move an application for the issue of directions to the landlord. however a tenant at least knows the amount which he has to pay to the landlord. that amount can be mentioned in the application. still further, it is the claim of the petitioners that the rent had been actually offered to the landlords but they had refused to accept it. however, there is no averment as to how much was offered and when it was offered. a perusal of the application shows that only a vague averment has been made that 'the applicants requested the respondents many times to receive the batai of the disputed crop rabi 1983 and to give receipt thereof to the applicants, but the respondents refused to take the batai and give the receipt. hence, the need for the applicants to file this application.'12. l.p.a. no. 754/93:dharampal and visu pal sons of rulia ram filed 5 applications against the appellants des raj and vasandha ram seeking their ejectment. the same were dismissed by the assistant collector 1st grade, thanesar on 8.2.1984. appeals filed by the land owners were dismissed by the collector, kurukshetra on 24.4.1984. the commissioner, ambala division, who heard the revision, opined that the tenants had defaulted in the payment of rent and on this basis, he recommended the acceptance of the applications filed by the land owners. the financial commissioner expressed his agreement with the commissioner and while accepting the revision petitions of the land owners, he ordered the ejectment of the appellants.13. des raj and vasandha ram challenged the orders of the commissioner and the financial commissioner in civil writ petition no. 4271 of 1986. during the pendency of the writ petition, shri vasandha ram died. therefore, the other sons, namely, gian chand and hans raj were brought on record on the basis of order dated 3.10.1986 passed in cm. no. 3236 of 1986. the learned single judge (j.l. gupta, j.) refused to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the commissioner and the financial commissioner on the issue of default and dismissed the writ petition. the relevant portion of the impugned order passed by the learned single judge read as under:-'both the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are untenable. firstly, no copy of the alleged statement of dharam pal has been produced on the record of the case. secondly, it has not been pointed out that the said respondent had admitted at any stage that rent was not due from the petitioners. in fact even on being specifically asked to point out any statement showing an admission by the respondent-landlord that rent had actually been paid. learned counsel has not been able to refer to any such evidence. furthermore, a person cannot normally remember the details of period for which the different amounts are due. the financial commissioner has in paragraph 4 of the order specifically referred to the documentary evidence to show that rent had in fact been due for various crops. accordingly, the first contention raised by the learned counsel cannot be accepted.as for the second contention, it deserves mention that the financial commissioner has specifically found that 'no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for these defaults.' in other words, the financial commissioner has found as a fact that the petitioners have not sufficient cause for not making the payment of rent. a copy of the revision petition filed by respondent nos.3 and 4 before the commissioner, ambala division has been produced as annexure r-l with the written statement. the details of the defaults committed by the petitioners have been clearly given. it has been shown that the petitioners have been committing defaults from rabi 1974 to khariff 1982. on being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to controvert this position.it is thus established that the petitioners have committed defaults. they have not been able to give any satisfactory explanation for these defaults. in this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned financial commissioner accepting the recommendation of the commissioner, ambala division and setting aside the orders of the assistant collector and the collector calls for no interference. this is all the more so because the remedy under articles 226 is discretionary and can be invoked only where substantial miscarriage of justice has taken place. the petitioners being defaulters have not suffered any injustice. in fact, accepting their claim would cause manifest injustice to the respondent-landlords.'14. shri m.l. sarin, senior counsel appearing for the appellants in lp.a. no. 586 of 1993 challenged the correctness of the order of the learned single judge as well as the orders passed by the assistant collector, grade ii, thanesar, the collector, kurukshetra, and the financial commissioner and urged the following contentions:-(a) the application filed by the land owners for ejectment of the appellants should not have been entertained by the assistant collector because it was not in form-m prescribed for the purpose.(b) the findings recorded by the assistant collector, the collector and the financial commissioner as well as the conclusions recorded by the learned single judge are per se erroneous because the appellants had taken all steps to deposit the rent.(c) the appellants cannot be held guilty of not paying the batai because the revenue officer had not made determination of the batai payable by the tenants.(d) the filing of successive applications by the land owners was clearly indicative of their mala fide intention to secure ejectment of the appellants by hook or crook.(e) the application filed by the appellants under section 14(iii) could not have been dismissed because there is no provision for adjudication of such application.(f) the failure of the land owners to avail remedy under sections 17 and 18 of the punjab tenancy act, 1887, should have been treated sufficient for rejecting their application.15. shri rameshwar malik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in lp.a. no. 754 of 1993 argued that the commissioner, ambala division, the financial commissioner and the learned single judge have gravely erred in relying on the statement of dharam pal for holding that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause for non-payment of rent.16. shri viney mittal controverted the submissions of shri sarin and shri malik and pleaded for dismissal of the appeals. he argued that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the various authorities constituted under the 1953 act and the learned single judge do not warrant interference by the lp.a. bench and the mere possibility of forming a different opinion is not sufficient to reverse the findings recorded by the learned single judge after a thorough appreciation of evidence produced by the parties. shri mittal strenuously urged that the appellants should not be allowed to raise those points which were not urged before the learned single judge. he pointed out that the legality of the orders passed by the assistant collector, the collector and the financial commissioner was not challenged in civil writ petition no. 9572 of -1987 on the ground of failure of the land owners to avail the remedy under sections 17 and 18 of the punjab tenancy act, 1887 and, therefore, they should not be allowed to raise this point for the first time in letters patent appeal. on merits of l.p.a. no. 586 of 1993, learned counsel made the following subrnissions:-(i) in an application filed under section 9(1)(ii) read with section 14-a(i), the land owner is not required to indicate the quantum of rent due, as is required to be mentioned in an application which may be filed under section 14-a(ii).(ii) an application under section 14-a(i) is to be filed in form-l and not form-m which is meant for an application to be filed under section 14-a(ii) for recovery of arrears.(iii) in the proceedings initiated by the land owner for fixation of rent, by filing application dated 10.7.1974, there was stay upto 14.7.1981 on the payment of rent at the enhanced rate but thereafter there was no such stay and in any case, the tenants were bound to pay rent at the old rates.(iv) learned counsel further submitted that the act of the tenant of filing the application dated 13/14.6.1983 for deposit of the batai was farcical because the crop had already been harvested and sold and the tenants had, at no point of time, asked the land owners to remain present at the time of harvesting or sale of the crop.17. shri mittal read out the contents of application submitted by the tenants under section 14(iii) and submitted that the statement, made by the tenants about the submission of application for preparation of goshwara, is patently false. he further argued that if, at all, the tenants felt aggrieved by the dismissal of their application, they were free to challenge the order dated 27.3.1984 by filing appeal under section 80 of the punjab tenancy act, 1887 and as no such appeal was filed, the said order must be treated as final for all purposes.in reply to the argument of shri rameshwar malik, shri mittal invited the court's attention to the contents of the orders passed by the commissioner and the financial commissioner and urged that the findings recorded by them on the issue of default should be treated as final and in any case, l.p.a. bench should not upset those findings because the learned single judge has refused to exercise certiorari jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the two authorities. shri mittal also objected to the maintainability of a joint petition filed for challenging the orders passed by the financial commissioner accepting five revision petitions filed by the respondents.18. before dealing with the contentions urged by the learned counsel, we deem it necessary and appropriate to reiterate the well established principles regarding the scope of the jurisdiction of letters patent bench. it is trite to say that l.p.a. bench will be loath to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned single judge on the issues of fact. in cases where the learned single judge refused to exercise certiorari jurisdiction of the high court under article 226 to reverse or modify the findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial and judicial authorities/tribunals. l.p.a. bench will be extremely cautious in upsetting the order of the learned single judge. even on the points of law, l.p.a. bench will not interfere with the order of the learned single judge unless it is satisfied that the views expressed by the learned single bench are totally incompatible with the settled proposition of law or it is per se erroneous.19. keeping these principles in view, we shall decide whether the orders passed by the learned single judge require interference in these appeals.20. sections 9(1)(ii), 12, 14, 14-a of the 1953 act, rules 9 and 10 of the 1953 rules, rule 22 of the 1956 rules and the extracts of form-l, form-m, form-n and form-p, which have bearing on the decision of these appeals are reproduced below:-the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953:'9. liability of tenant to be ejected.- (1) 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-xx xx xx xx(ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause; orxx xx xx xx12. amount of maximum rent- (1) notwithstanding anything contained in the punjab tenancy act, 1887 (act xvi of 1887), or in any agreement of 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.(2) in computing the maximum rent payable by a tenant, such portion of the rent, if any, as represents the consideration for services or facilities provided by the land-owner in relation to the land shall not be taken into account.xx xx xx xx14. duty of land owner to furnish receipt for rent received from tenant,- (1) every land-owner shall give or cause to be given a valid receipt to the tenant in the form prescribed for the rent received by him or on his behalf.(2) any landowner who fails to give or cause to be given such receipt shall on conviction be punishable with a fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.14-a. procedure for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, etc. notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and subject to the provisions of section 9-a.-(i) a land-owner desiring to eject a tenant under this act shall apply in writing to the assistant collector, first grade, having jurisdiction, who shall thereafter proceed as provided for in sub-section (2) of section 10 of this' act, and the provisions of sub-section (3) of the said section shall also apply in relation to such application provided that the tenant's rights to compensation and acquisition of occupancy rights, if any, under the punjab tenancy act, 1887 (xvi of 1887), shall not be affected:(ii) a land-owner desiring to recover arrears of rent from a tenant shall apply in writing to the assistant collector, second grade, having jurisdiction, who shall thereupon send a notice, in the form prescribed, to the tenant either to deposit the rent or value thereof, if payable in kind, or give proof of having paid it or of the fact that he is not liable to pay the whole or part of the rent or of the fact of the landlord's refusal to receive the same or to give a receipt, within the period specified in the notice. where, after summary determination, as provided for in sub-section (2) of section 10 of this act, the assistant collector finds that the tenant has not paid or deposited the rent, he shall eject the tenant summarily and put the landowner in possession of the land concerned;(iii) (a) if a landlord refuses to accept rent from his tenant or demands rent in excess of what he is entitled to under this act, or refused to give a receipt, the tenant may in writing inform the assistant collector second grade, having jurisdiction of the fact:(b) on receiving such application, the assistant collector shall by a written notice require the landlord to accept the rent payable in accordance with this act, or to give a receipt, as the case may be, or both, within 60 days of the receipt of the notice.the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1953:9. mode of determination of 1/3rd share of crop or value thereof- (a) for the purposes of determination of the 1/3rd share of crop or the value thereof, 'crop' means only that part of the produce of the land and harvest concerned which was the subject of division between the landlord and the tenant before the commencement of the act (x of 1953).explanation.- any part of the produce which before the commencement of the act, was not divided between the landlord and tenant, shall continue to be so and shall not be included in the term 'crop'.(b) for the purposes of determination of the value of the 'crop' as defined in sub-rule (a), the quality, quantity and the prevailing prices shall be taken into account.10. receipt for rent received by the land-owner.- a receipt to be given by a land-owner, under section 14(1) of the act, for the rent received by him or on his behalf shall be in the form in annexure 'd' appended to these rules.the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1956:22. 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 clauses (ii) to (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9, read with section 14-a(i) of the act shall, when applying to the assistant collector, 1 grade having jurisdiction, do so in writing in form l.(2) a landowner desiring to recover the arrears of rent from a tenant, under section 14-a(ii) of the act, shall apply to the assistant collector ii grade having jurisdiction in 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.form l(figures, wherever required to be given in this form, should be given in english' numerals).(rule 22 of the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1956, read with section 14-a(i) of the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953, as amended by punjab act xi of 1955) application by a landowner under section 14-a(i) for the ejectment of a tenant. tothe assistant collector, 1 grade,place or tehsil.................,district.................i am the owner of the lands whose particulars are given in the form overleaf. the lands are in the possession of the tenant whose particulars are also given in the said form. i desire to eject him for the reasons given therein.i solemnly affirm that the particulars given in the form are true to the best of my knowledge.signature or thumb impression.date..................form m(figures wherever required to be given in this form, should be given in english numerals) (note: to be presented in duplicate)rule 22 of the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1956, read with section 14-a (ii) of punjab act x of 1953, as amended by punjab act, xi of 1955).application by a landowner under section 14-a(ii) for the recovery of arrears of rent due from his tenant. tothe assistant collector, 1 grade,place or tehsil.................,district.................the tenant, whose particulars are given in the form below, has not paid me rent for the harvest noted in the form. action may, therefore, be taken for his ejectment under section 14-a(ii) of the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953 as amended by punjab act, xi of 1955.signature or thumb-impression.date.................form 'n'rule 22 of the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1956 read with section 14-a (ii) of the punjab act x of 1953, as amended by punjab act xi of 1955) notice to a tenant, who is in arrears of rent, to deposit the rent, etc. fromthe assistant collector, 1 grade,place or tehsil.................,district.................to(name, parentage and address of tenant).attached is a copy of the application made by your landlord for recovery of arrears of rent due from you.you are now, required, within a month of the receipt of this notice to:-(1) deposit the rent or the value thereof (if rent payable in kind), in this court; or(2) give proof of having paid the rent;(3) give proof of not being liable to pay the whole or part of this demand; or(4) give proof of the landlord's refusal to receive the rent or give a receipt for it.if you fail to comply with the above orders, you will be ejected summarily from the land and your landlord put in possession.signed............assistant collector, ii grade,place/tehsil.................,dated..................district. ....................form'p'(rule 22 of the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1956, read with section 14-a(iii)(b) of punjab act x of 1953 as amended by punjab act xi of 1955). notice to landlord to accept the rent, etc. fromthe assistant collector, 1 grade,place or tehsil.................,district.................to(name and address of landlord).with reference to your application no............dated.......(particulars of the landlord's application in form m to be given here). you are informed that according to your tenant:-(a) you had refused to accept the rent;(b) you demanded rent in excess of what you are entitled to;(c) you had refused to give your tenant a receipt.you are, therefore, required within 60 days of the receipt of this notice to:-(a) accept the rent payable in accordance with law; or(b) give a receipt; or(c) accept the rent and give a receipt.if you have anything to say against this order, you or your representative should, with your proof, appear in my court on..............(date to be entered here).signed.............assistant collector, ii grade,place/tehsil..................,district......................dated.................'21. a careful and conjoint reading of the provisions extracted above alongwith the scheme of the 1953 act and the rules framed thereunder shows that the act is meant for protecting the interest of the tenants against the unscrupulous landowners. however, in order to avail the protections provided to them under the act and the rules, the tenants must fulfill their obligations under the act, the most fundamental rule of which is to pay the rent regularly. the right of the landowner to eject that tenant is restricted to the limited grounds specified in section 9. the tenant can be ejected if he fails to cultivate the land under his tenancy without sufficient cause or he carries on the cultivation in such a manner that the land is rendered unfit for the purpose for which it had been leased out. the landowner can also seek ejectment if the tenant refuses to execute a 'qabuliyat nama' or 'patta' in favour of the former in spite of the order of the assistant collector. the default in the payment of rent regularly without sufficient cause is another ground available to the landowner for securing ejectment of the tenant. section 14-a read with section 10(2) of the 1953 act prescribes a summary procedure to be followed by the assistant collector while enquiring any matter under the section. the remedies available to the landowner and the tenant under section 14-a of the 1953 act can appropriately be itemised as under:-(i) the landowner can seek ejectment of tenant on any or more of the grounds mentioned in section 9(1) of the act; or(ii) the landowner can recover arrears of rent from a tenant; and(iii) the tenant can apply for issuance of a direction to the landowner to accept the rent.22. it is, thus, evident that under section 14-a of the 1953 act, two distinct remedies are available to the landowner. one remedy is under clause (i) and the second remedy is under clause(ii). if the landowner applies for recovery of arrears of rent, he has to make an application under section 14-a(ii). on such application, notice is required to be given in form-m and if the tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent after summary determination by the assistant collector, he becomes liable to be evicted. the payment of rent in pursuance of an order made under section 14-a(ii) does not absolve the tenant of the liability to be ejected on an application filed under section 14-a(i) read with section 9(ii).23. on the basis of above analysis, we express our complete agreement with the judgment of the learned single judge that though the act is heavily loaded in favour of the tenants, it casts a duty on them to pay the rent due to the landlord promptly and punctually and any tenant who neglects this duty and commits a default in the payment of rent without sufficient cause must bear the consequence.24. the argument of shri sarin that the application filed by the respondents should not have been entertained because it was not in form-m sounds a bit attractive but cannot stand closer scrutiny because clauses (i) and (iii) of section 14-a deal with different situations. while section 14-a(i) read with rule 22(i) of the 1956 rules requires the submission of application in form-l for ejectment of a tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent. section 14-a(ii) read with rule 22(ii) requires the landowner to submit application in form-m for recovery of arrears of rent from the tenant. notice of the application submitted by the tenant under section 14-a(iii)(b) is required to be given in form-p. in this form, reference has been made to the application filed by the landowner in form-m which is meant for an application for recovery of arrears of rent by the landowner. since the respondents had applied for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of default, the application submitted by them in form-l was rightly entertained by the assistant collector grade-ii and we do not find any valid reason to hold that the application filed by the landowner was not maintainable.25. at the threshold of the consideration of shri sarin's argument that the cause shown by the appellants for non-payment/non-deposit of rent should be treated as sufficient, we deem it proper to observe that the assistant collector grade-ii, thanesar, the collector, kurukshetra, the financial commissioner and the learned single judge have concurrently opined against the appellants. the finding recorded by the assistant collector grade-ii that the cause shown by the tenants, is not sufficient cause, has been expressly approved by the collector, the financial commissioner and by the learned single judge and, in our opinion, there is no tangible reason to disagree with them. otherwise also, the facts available on record unmistakably prove that the appellants had failed to offer any cogent reason for non-payment/non-deposit of the rent. the finding recorded by the competent authorities after considering the evidence available on record including the categorical admission made by late shri vasandha ram in his statement dated 9.4.1995 shows that the rent had not been paid by the tenants from 1974 till the date of making of the statement by shri vasandha ram. the application filed by the tenants for deposit of rent of rabi 1983 was rejected by the competent authority. since they did not challenge that order, it is not possible to agree with shri sarin that the findings recorded by the courts below about the lack of sufficient cause for non-payment of rent is erroneous in law warrant interference by the appeal bench.26. learned counsel could not explain as to why the tenants did not execute appropriate 'qabuliyat nama' in terms of the direction given by the assistant collector on the application filed by the landowners in spite of the fact that the said direction was upheld upto the supreme court. he also could not explain as to why the appellants did not pay the rent atleast at the old rates and why the rent at the revised rates was not paid after 14.7.1981 when there was no stay in their favour. in view of this, we do not find any valid ground to disturb the conclusion recorded by the learned single judge that the tenants have failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of rent.27. in this connection reference can usefully be made to some of the decisions of the supreme court and of this court.28. in kapur chand v. b.s. grewal, financial commissioner, punjab, chandigarh, a.i.r. 1965 s.c. 1491, their lordships of the supreme court interpreted section 9 and 14-a and held that the scope of clause (i) and (ii) of section 14-a is different and they provide for different situations in which the tenant may become liable to ejectment. the relevant observations made in that judgment are extracted below:-'section 9(1)(ii) of the punjab security of land tenures act, 1953 provides, inter alia that no land owner is competent to eject a tenant except when such tenant fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. section 14-a, introduced in the act in 1955, lays down the procedure and enables a landowner to apply for the eviction of his tenant on any of the grounds stated in section 9. the conduct spoken of in section 9(1) (ii) of the tenant prior to the coming into force of the new section 14a can be taken into account. no doubt a statute must be applied retrospectively. but a statute is not applied retrospectively because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a moment of time prior to its passing. clause (ii) of section 9(1) makes a particular conduct the ground for an application for eviction. the necessary condition for the application of section 9(1)(ii) may commence even before the act came into force and post conduct, which is as relevant for the clause as conduct after the coming into force of the act, cannot be overlooked. the tribunals are, therefore, right in considering conduct of the tenant prior to the coming into force of section 14-a while determining whether the tenant was irregular in paying the rent.clause (ii) of section 14a deals with eviction as punishment for non-compliance with the orders of the court. clause (i) deals with evictions for any of the reasons given in section 9(1). one such reason is that the tenant has failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. eviction under the second clause is for failure to carry out the orders to deposit arrears of rent within the time fixed for payment and eviction under the first clause is a penalty for not paying the rent regularly without sufficient cause. the clauses are on different footing and as the scheme of the act itself shows different tribunals determine the two issues.'29. in mrs. raj kanta v. the financial commissioner, (supra), the apex court eversed the decision of this court which had taken the view that the term regularly used in section 9(1)(ii) would not include a single act of default. while eversing the judgment of the high court, their lordships held:-'while interpreting the word 'regularly' the high court seems to have overlooked two important circumstances. in the first place, the word regularly has been used immediately after the phrase 'fails to pay rent' and is followed by the words 'without sufficient cause'. secondly, there is nothing in the section to indicate that the legislature intended to exclude one single default. the high court attempted to supply words to the section which are not there. in doing so it has failed to consider that if once the court was to lay down a particular line of demarcating by extending the connotation of the word 'regularly' to exclude one default, it is difficult to explain why the legislature contemplated only one default and not two or three for that matter.in order to construe the plain language of section 9(1)(ii) which admits of no ambiguity, it may be necessary to look to the object and the purposes of the act. in the case of bhagirath ram chand v. state of punjab and ors., a.i.r. 1954 punjab 167, a full bench of the punjab and haryana high court held that the preamble of the act stated that it was intended to provide for the security of land tenure and other incidental matters. it is no doubt true that the main thrust of the provisions of the act are directed towards preventing the landlords from ejecting their tenants except on the grounds mentioned in section 9, but at the same time, it cannot be denied that the legislature undoubtedly provided some protection to the landlords by conferring on them a limited right to eject their tenants and within this limited sphere, the right was absolute and could not be curtailed by interpreting clause (ii) of section 9(1) of the act through a process of twisting the law and doing violence to the language of the section.on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, it seems to us that the legislature clearly intended to use the word regularly to mean payment of rent in a uniform and consistent manner without any breach or default. the legislature never contemplated that a single default could be condoned. this inference is fortified by the words 'without sufficient cause'. in other words, the legislature clearly provided that if the tenant had committed a default, whether one, two or more, the same could only be condoned if sufficient cause is shown and not otherwise. if, however, we accept the interpretation of the high court, then the words 'sufficient cause' become absolutely redundant.on an overall consideration of the matter, a correct interpretation of the plain language and the words and phrases used in clause (ii) of section 9(1) of the act seems to us that the word 'regular' connotes a consistent course of conduct without any break or breach and the words 'regular payment of rent' means that the rent should be paid punctually without any default or laxity. although the act is heavily loaded in favour of the rights of the tenants so as to confer on them several important benefits and privileges yet as the act is confiscatory in nature, so far as the landlord is concerned it should be strictly construed within the limited sphere inasmuch as the landlord is conferred limited grounds on which ejectment is permissible under section 9 of the act which appears to be a safety valve for the limited rights that are left with the landlord under the act. in order, therefore, to advance the object of the act so as to assure the limited protection to the landlord, the language employed in the various clauses of section 9 has to be construed so as to give real benefit to the landlord within the limited range that the section operates. in the instant case, the words failure to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause postulate the following conditions:-(1) there must be a failure on the part of the tenant to pay rent;(2) such failure must be to pay rent regularly, that is to say, the rent should be paid punctually consistently without any break or breach;(3) if there is any default ranging from one to several, the tenant has got to show sufficient cause if his case is to be taken out of the mischief of sectionwe might add to the risk of repetition that the use of the words 'without sufficient cause' clearly indicates that the intention of the legislature was that in order to escape ejectment, the tenant must at least be regular in payment of the rent and if he wants to get rid of the consequences of his default, he must prove sufficient cause. if, however, we construe the word 'regularly' as meaning at regular intervals so as to include a single default, then the term 'without sufficient cause' becomes absolutely redundant. for the tenants, his case could be taken out of the ambit of clause (ii) of section 9(1) without insisting on the tenant to prove sufficient cause for this single default. that would, therefore, make the words 'sufficient cause' meaningless in such cases.'in amar nath v. the financial commissioner, haryana and ors., 1994 p.lj. 405, the learned single judge held that the tenant's failure to pay rent regularly attracts consequence of eviction and it is open to the landowner to sue for recovery of rent, or claim eviction of the tenant. the learned single judge further held that option exercisable by landowner does not give any right to the tenant and the landowner's claim for eviction cannot be defeated on the ground that he did not sue for recovery of rent,30. in parkash and ors. v. financial commissioner, revenue, haryana and ors., (1996-1)112 p.l.r. 313, a division bench, while confirming the order passed by the financial commissioner held as under:-'the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in question is on account of non-payment of rent, which by itself is a ground for ejectment and the amended proviso as referred to above has provided that time may be given to deposit the rent. in the case in hand the ground of ejectment is independent from the ground of ejectment of non-payment of rent. in this case the ground of ejectment is that the petitioners have failed to pay rent regularly without there being sufficient cause for non-payment of rent. the authorities below have come to a categorical finding of fact that the petitioners have failed to pay rent from 1981 to 1984 for three consecutive years without there being sufficient cause. nothing has been pointed out either in the petition or in any of the grounds taken before the authorities below to indicate that there was sufficient cause for non-payment of rent. the petitioners specifically took the plea that they had paid the rent. sufficient cause for non-payment of rent is antithesis of payment of rent. the petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate in the same breath that is first to say that they have paid the rent, and, in the alternative, if the court comes to a conclusion that the rent has not been paid then there was sufficient cause for non-payment of rent in spite of there being no cause pleaded much less proved.'31. the law laid down by the apex court is binding on us and, therefore, while following the same and simultaneously recording our concurrence with the opinion expressed by the coordinate bench in parkash v. financial commissioner, revenue, haryana (supra) and by the learned single judge in amar nath v. financial commissioner, haryana (supra), we hold that the order passed by the learned single judge does not suffer from any legal error.32. the argument of shri sarin that the applications of land-owners should have been rejected because of their failure to avail the remedy under sections 17 and 18 of the punjab tenancy act, 1887 merits rejection because-(i) this point was neither raised nor argued before the learned single judge;(ii) the remedy available to the land-owners under sections 17 and 18 for division for appraisement of the produce cannot be treated as an alternative remedy for seeking ejectment of the defaulting tenant; and(iii) in this case, tenant did not call upon the land-owner to remain present at the time of harvest and, therefore, it is not reasonable to presume that he was not interested in invoking the provisions of the 1887 act.33. before parting with the case, we may mention that while admitting lp.a. no. 586 of 1993 on 4.8.1993, this court stayed dispossession of the appellants subject to their depositing a sum of rs. 50,000/- within one month. if that amount has been deposited by the tenants, the same shall be adjusted towards the arrears of rent which may be assessed by the competent authority in terms of the direction given by the learned single judge on 1.6.1993.34. as far as lp.a. no. 754 of 1993 is concerned, we deem it proper to observe that the learned single judge has declined to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the financial commissioner. while doing so, the learned single judge must have been conscious of the law laid down by the supreme court about the ambit and scope of certiorari jurisdiction of the high court in sayed yakoob v. k.s. radhakrishnan and ors., a.i.r. 1964 s.c. 477. in that case, the apex court has held as under:-'the jurisdiction of high court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court. this limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings.a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot, however, be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. the adequacy of sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, the points cannot be agitated before a writ court.'35. keeping in view the law laid down by the supreme court, we hold that the learned single judge has rightly refused to interfere with the pure finding of fact recorded by the financial commissioner on the issue of default. shri rameshwar malik could not point out any manifest error in the order annexure p.4 passed by the financial commissioner. this is an additional reason for refusal to differ with the view taken by the learned single judge.36. for the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed with costs of rs. 5,000/- in each case.