Narender Singh and Others Vs. Kewal Krishan and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
punjab security of land tenure act, 1953 - section 9 -jaswant singh. j. (oral) plaintiffs/respondents are in second appeal against the judgements and decrees of the courts below, whereby their suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial court and in appeal the findings of the trial court were upheld. briefly noticed the facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that order dated 24.7.2001 passed in case no.15 titled kewal krishan etc. vs.narender singh, passed by ac ist grade guhla is illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiffs. they also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit land in execution of the impugned order dated 24.7.2001. it was alleged by the plaintiffs that they being tenants at the rate of 1/4th batai were in cultivating possession of suit land and ejectment order dated 24.7.2001 had been passed against them by ac ist grade in an ejectment petition filed under section 9 of the punjab security of land tenure act,1953 (for short the 1953 act). it was further alleged that the said ejectment petition filed by general power of attorney was not maintainable as under section 9 of the act only land owner is competent to file the ejectment petition. it was further alleged that though all the land owners were required to file the ejectment petition but only some of them had filed the same and as such the ejectment petition was liable to be dismissed under section 14 of the 1953 act. it was also alleged that ac ist grade was bound to serve a notice on all the tenants after calculating the rent,if any, but no such calculation had been done nor any time was given to them for depositing the amount of rent found due, if any. upon notice of the suit, defendants filed written statement alleging therein that against the ejectment order passed by the ac ist grade the plaintiffs have already filed an appeal and the suit had been filed to harass the defendants. it was further alleged that prior to this an ejectment order was passed against the plaintiffs by the ac ist grade, guhla on 19.11.1996 and plaintiffs had challenged the said ejectment order by way of an appeal which was dismissed by collector kaithal vide order dated 21.4.1996. it was further alleged that plaintiffs were chronic defaulters of payment of 1/4th batai. it was also alleged that since 24.7.2001 the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land as trespassers. upon the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. the learned trial court on the basis of oral/documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the suit vide impugned judgement and decree dated 9.1.2009. aggrieved against the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned additional district judge, kaithal, vide impugned judgement and decree dated 8.10.2010. hence the present appeal. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants that the impugned judgements and decrees are based on mis-reading of evidence and as such are liable to be dismissed. after hearing the learned counsel, i find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants. while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants it was noticed by the learned trial court that the impugned order has been upheld by the collector in his order ex.d3 and also by commissioner vide ex.p13 (ex.d4). however, the plaintiffs have only challenged the order of ac ist grade,guhla but have not challenged the subsequent orders passed by the collector and commissioner, which have no doubt been passed after the filing of the suit. it was also noticed by the learned trial court that the plaintiffs made no effort to amend the suit and to challenge the subsequent orders. it was rightly held by the learned trial court that the order of ac ist grade, guhla has merged with those of the collector and commissioner and therefore, the present suit challenging the order of ac ist grade without challenging those of the superiors is not maintainable. it was further rightly noticed by the trial court that on the one hand the plaintiffs have challenged the order passed by the ac ist grade by filing the present suit and on the other hand they had challenged the same very order before the superior authorities. thus plaintiffs have availed two remedies for the same relief and as such also the suit was not maintainable. on merits the trial court has returned a categoric finding that the plaintiffs are habitual defaulters with regard to payment of rent without sufficient cause and no sympathy can be shown to a tenant who has been compelling the landlord to approach the court time and again for payment of rent. the said finding of the trial court, on appreciation of evidence available on record, was upheld by the appellate court by observing that a fair offer was made by the defendants before the financial commissioner that they will not be pursuing the ejectment petition even if the rent was paid at that stage but despite that offer the plaintiffs/appellants never bothered to pay the rent or batai charges. it has rightly been held by the appellate court that relief of declaration and permanent injunction are based on principle of equity and appellants are not acting in fairness and as such not entitled to the discretionary relief from the court. that apart it has further been rightly held by the appellate court that under section 25 of the 1953 act, except in accordance with the provisions of the 1953 act, the validity of any proceedings or order taken or made under this act shall not be called in question in any court or before any other authority. in view of the foregoing discussion, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.