S.S. Kang, J.—This judgment will dispose of CWP Nos. 1468, 1292, 1447, 1448 and 1449 of 1971 as common questions of law and fact are involved. Gangal Singh petitioner is the landowner and the private respondents in these petitions are the tenants under him. To better appreciate the controversy in these cases, it will be useful to refer to the facts in CWP No. 1468 of 1971.
2. Gangal Singh petitioner filed a suit on 18th September, 1968, under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, read with Section 9(1)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ballabgarh, for ejectment of Daljit Sing tenant-respondent No. 2 on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause with respect to six harvests i.e. from Kharif 1965 to Rabi 1968 and for recovery of the arrears of rent. Daljit Singh tenant appeared and contested the claim. He pleaded that the landowner had been refusing to accept the rent and ultimately he had to file an application under Section 14-A(iii) of the Act before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 19th July, 1968, with a prayer that Rs. 295.01 which was the rent of the land in dispute be got paid to the landowner and a receipt for the same be got issued to the applicant or this money may be allowed to be deposited in the Court. That the landowner had refused to accept the rent even in these proceedings and the same had to be deposited in the treasury on 18th October, 1968, under the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated 17th October, 1968, under the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade dated 17th October, 1968. The landowners never issued any receipt to the tenant and that he had never made a wilful default in the payment of the rent. The Assistant Collector was satisfied with the defence raised by Daljit tenant and he dismissed the suit on 30th September, 1969. The petitioner-landowner filed an appeal against this order. The Collector allowed the same vide his order dated 6th March, 1970, accepted the plea of the landowner and ordered the ejectment of the tenant. The appeal against this order filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 1st July, 1970. Dissatisfied with this order, the tenant filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The same was allowed on 15th December, 1970. The orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner were set aside and the order of the Assistant Collector dismissing the suit was restored.
3. Similar are the facts in other petitions also. Dissatisfied with these orders of the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.
4. Mr. H.L. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the Collector and Commissioner on the evidence produced in these cases had recorded findings of fact that the tenants had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause. The powers of the Financial Commissioner, according to the learned counsel, are analogous to those of the High Court under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code and the Financial Commissioner could not accept the revision petitions of the tenants on the ground on which he has allowed them. He contended that there was sufficient material on the record to show that the tenants were habitual defaulters and they had not paid rent regularly from Kharif 1965 to Rabi 1968 without sufficient cause and as such they had been rightly ejected by the Collector and the Commissioner. There is no merit in these contentions. The Collector and the Commissioner did not take into consideration the evidence of two very vital witnesses. Two postal Clerks had been examined who proved that Gangal Singh petitioner had refused six money orders sent to him by Mohar Singh and Brij Lal tenants. These two are the relevant documents to support their versions. They are public servants and nothing had been brought out against them in their cross-examination. One of the essential ingredients to be proved by a landowner to succeed is that the tenant had failed to pay the rent without sufficient cause. The default without sufficient cause is a jurisdictional fact. The establishment of this fact is necessary to clothe Assistant Collector with the jurisdiction to order ejectment. Both these officers did not consider this evidence. The other private respondents had made statements on oath alleging that they had offered rent but the same had not been accepted by the petitioner. So the Collector and the Commissioner had acted with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction while deciding the appeals and revisions of the tenants. Under these circumstances, the Financial Commissioner was fully justified and in fact duty bound to interfere with the unjust orders and set them aside.
5. The facts that the tenants were forced to approach the Assistant Collector First Grade with a prayer that the landowner be asked to accept the rent and give receipts for the same is a circumstance which lends credence to the plea of the tenants that the landowner was not accepting rent and was not prepared to give the receipts. The view taken by the Collector and the Commissioner that the tenants filed applications under Section 14-A(iii) of the Act on coming to know that the landowner was out to file a suit for ejectment is not supported by any evidence on the file. The circumstances rather suggest that after the landowner came to know about the filing of the applications under Section 14-A(iii) of the Act that he filed the suits for the ejectment of the tenants. Another fact which goes against the petitioner-landowner is his claim that no rent had been paid by the tenants for the last 14 years. It is unimaginable that any landowner will wait for such a long time for the recovery of rent. This fact only suggests that the landowner has no regard for truth. The landowner was required by the Assistant Collector to accept the rent for three years but he refused to do so. This fact also suggests that his only interest was to eject the tenants.
6. Mr Sarin has argued that it is not clear as to what amount was offered by the tenants and what exact amount was due. There is no merit in this contention. Written applications giving the rent due have been filed. The Assistant Collector had passed orders requiring the tenants to deposit the rent due. The same had been deposited before the decision of the ejectment suits by the Assistant Collector. No rent was legally due from the tenants and as such the suits were liable to fail.
7. Mr. H.L. Sarin, the learned counsel, then contended that the Financial Commissioner had illegally accepted the revision petitions on the ground that the suits for ejectment under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act were not competent. It is not the only ground on which the Financial Commissioner allowed the revision petitions. He has come to a positive finding of fact that the landowner was not accepting the rent and the tenants had not failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. Mr. Sarin is right to the extent that the suit under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act on the grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the Act was competent. After the passing of the Act, a tenant can be ejected only on the ground given in the Act. The suits were also filed on the ground provided in Section 9 but as observed earlier, the Financial Commissioner has held that the tenants were not at fault. They have not defaulted in the payment of the rent regularly and without sufficient cause.
8. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed but with no order as to costs.
