The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed both a writ petition and the subsequent Letters Patent Appeal in the matter of Geetan Singh @ Geetal Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others. The single bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl) dismissed the writ petition on 01.05.2023 in CWP-19311-2014, and the division bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda) dismissed the LPA on 01.05.2024 in LPA-764-2023. The Court held that tenants who failed to avail themselves of the statutory remedy under Section 14(A)(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 could not resist eviction by simply claiming that rent was paid but no receipt was issued by the landlord.
Background
The petitioners were agricultural tenants on land measuring 30 kanals 12 marlas in village Malout, Tehsil Malout, cultivating on 1/3rd batai (share of produce). Respondents No. 5 and 6 purchased the land by registered sale deed on 11.04.2008 and subsequently filed an application seeking eviction of the petitioners for non-payment of rent for the crops of Sauni 2008, Kharif 2009, and Sauni 2009. The petitioners contended that they had been tenants for over 40 years, that they had always paid rent, and that the landlords had simply not issued receipts.
The Revenue Authorities’ Findings
The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Malout, vide order dated 31.08.2010, dismissed the eviction application but directed the petitioners to deposit 1/3rd share of the crops with 8% interest within 15 days. Respondents No. 5 and 6 challenged this before the Collector, Sri Muktsar Sahib, who vide order dated 05.05.2011 allowed the appeal and ordered eviction, finding that the petitioners had failed to produce any record showing payment of rent. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, who vide order dated 06.05.2014 dismissed the revision, observing that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established on record and that all subordinate revenue authorities had concurrently found non-payment of rent.
The Single Bench Decision
The single bench examined the petitioners’ plea that rent had been paid but receipts were not issued by the landlords. The Court turned to Section 14(A)(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which specifically provides a remedy for tenants in this situation: if a landlord refuses to accept rent or refuses to give a receipt, the tenant may inform the Assistant Collector Second Grade in writing. Section 14 of the Act further provides for penal action against a landlord who fails to issue a receipt after receiving rent. The Court found it significant that the petitioners had never invoked this statutory remedy. They had neither filed any application before the Assistant Collector Second Grade informing him of the landlord’s refusal to issue receipts, nor had they initiated any proceedings under Section 14 against the landlords. This inaction, the Court held, undermined their plea that rent was in fact paid. The concurrent findings of four revenue authorities, from the Assistant Collector through to the Financial Commissioner, all pointed to non-payment of rent for the relevant crops. No receipt was produced before any authority or before the Court. The writ petition was dismissed.
The Division Bench Decision
The division bench in LPA-764-2023 re-examined the single bench judgment and the orders of all the revenue authorities. The appellants contended that the single bench had failed to appreciate that they were tenants for 40 to 50 years and that the revenue courts had no jurisdiction over the question of landlord-tenant relationship. The division bench found no substance in these contentions. The Court observed that the single judge, after re-appreciating all the revenue orders, had correctly noted that the landlord-tenant relationship was duly established on record and that the petitioners had failed to produce any receipt for rent payment. The finding regarding non-issuance of receipt had been rightly dealt with through the provisions of Section 14(A)(iii) of the Act. The division bench found no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and dismissed the intra-court appeal.
Key Principle
The judgment establishes an important principle for agricultural tenancy disputes in Punjab: a tenant who claims to have paid rent but was denied a receipt must avail of the statutory remedy provided under Section 14(A)(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, by informing the Assistant Collector Second Grade in writing. The failure to invoke this remedy, combined with the inability to produce receipts before any forum, is fatal to a tenant’s defence against eviction for non-payment of rent. The statutory scheme under Sections 14 and 14-A of the Act provides a complete mechanism to protect tenants against landlord refusal to acknowledge rent payment, and tenants who bypass this mechanism cannot subsequently claim the benefit of it in eviction proceedings.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate, and Ms. Salina Chalana, Advocate, appeared for Respondents No. 5 and 6 (the Landlords) in both the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeal.
Download the Single Bench Judgment (CWP-19311-2014)
Download the Division Bench Judgment (LPA-764-2023)