Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1857 OF 2003

Subhash Chand                                         …     Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.                         … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the order dated 04.03.2002 of  

the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana  

dismissing Civil  Writ  Petition No.3733 of  2002.  During the  

pendency  of  this  appeal  respondent  No.4  Ramesh  Chand  

Girdhar died on 09.12.2009 and I.A. No.2 of 2010 has been  

filed  to  bring  on  record  his  legal  heirs  namely,  Smt.  Kiran  

Girdhar  (wife),  Shri  Rajeev  Girdhar  (son),  Shri  Sandeep

Girdhar (son) and Smt. Ruchi (daughter).   This I.A. No. 2 of  

2010 is allowed.  I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2010 have been filed by  

appellants claiming to be brothers and sisters of the appellant  

and they have prayed to be impleaded in the appeal.  As the  

appellant represents the interest of the appellants, if any, in  

the suit property, we reject the prayers in I.A. Nos.5 and 6 of  

2010.  

2. The facts of this case very briefly are that the mother of  

the  appellant  filed  an  application  for  recovery  of  rent  and  

ejectment  of  the  respondent  No.4  before  the  Assistant  

Collector, First Grade, Ballabgarh, Faridabad.  She stated in  

the application that she was the owner of  agricultural  land  

Rectangle No.49, Killa No.8 and 15 measuring 16 Kanals at  

Mauja  Baselwa  Tehsil  in  district  Faridabad  and  the  

respondent No.4 was a tenant in respect of this land and the  

respondent No.4 had not paid rent for the land for five years  

from  Kharif  1977  to  Rabbi  1982.   She  prayed  that  the  

respondent  No.4 be  evicted  from the land and a  decree for  

recovery of rent for 3 years from Kharif 1979 to Rabbi 1982  

totalling to Rs.63/- be passed.  The Assistant Collector issued  

2

summons to  the  respondent  No.4  and the  respondent  No.4  

filed a written statement in which he pleaded that he had filed  

a suit for declaration of occupancy rights in respect of the suit  

land which had been decreed in his favour and therefore he  

was not liable to pay rent.  After considering the evidence led  

by  the  parties  and  after  hearing  the  arguments  of  learned  

counsel  for  the  parties,  the  Assistant  Collector  in his  order  

dated 10.03.1995 found that the respondent No.4 had been  

declared occupancy tenant by the Assistant Collector by order  

dated 07.04.1981 but on appeal being filed by the mother of  

the  appellant,  the  Collector  had  remanded  the  case  to  the  

Assistant Collector by order dated 10.11.1981 and thereafter  

the Assistant Collector again declared the respondent No.4 as  

the  occupancy  tenant  by  order  dated  12.11.1982,  but  on  

appeal the Collector set aside the order dated 12.11.1982 and  

held that the respondent No.4 had ceased to be an occupancy  

tenant  by  order  dated 15.06.1983.   The  Assistant  Collector  

further found that the respondent No.4 carried an appeal to  

the Commissioner who dismissed the appeal by order dated  

31.01.1986 and the respondent No.4 thereafter filed a revision  

3

which was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner by  

order  dated  22.07.1986.   In  his  order  dated  10.03.1995,  

however, the Assistant Collector held that as no notice in Form  

‘N’ had been served on the respondent No.4 and the rent had  

been  paid  by  the  respondent  No.4  on  05.06.1986  the  

application  of  the  mother  of  the  appellant  was  not  

maintainable.

3. The mother of the appellant then filed an appeal before  

the Collector, Faridabad, who dismissed the appeal.  She filed  

a revision before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division and the  

Commissioner in his order dated 18.02.2000 held that if the  

suit had been filed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures  

Act, 1953 (for short ‘the 1953 Act’) then notice in Form ‘N’ was  

required to be given but as the suit had actually been filed  

under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, no such notice  

in  Form  ‘N’  was  required  to  be  given.   The  Commissioner  

further held that it was clear from the records of the Assistant  

Collector,  First  Grade,  Ballabgarh,  Faridabad,  that  the  

respondent No.4 had admitted in his written statement that he  

had not paid the rent and had deposited the rent after the suit  

4

was filed by the mother of the appellant for recovery of rent  

and for  eviction and accordingly set  aside the orders of the  

Assistant  Collector  and  the  Collector  by  his  order  dated  

18.02.2000.  The respondent No.4 filed a revision before the  

Financial  Commissioner,  Haryana,  and  the  Financial  

Commissioner  by  his  order  dated  14.08.2001  allowed  the  

revision and restored the order of the Collector.  The appellant  

challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner before the  

High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3733 of 2002 and the High  

Court dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.

4. Mr.  Manoj  Swarup,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,  

submitted that Section 9(1)(ii) of the 1953 Act provides that a  

tenant is liable to be ejected if he “fails to pay rent regularly  

without  sufficient  cause.”   He  submitted  that  in  Mrs.  Raj  

Kanta v.  The  Financial  Commissioner,  Punjab  and  Others  

[(1980) 3 SCC 589] this Court has held that the words “fails to  

pay rent regularly without sufficient cause” in Section 9(1)(ii)  

mean  that  the  tenant  should  pay  rent  punctually  and  

consistently without any break or breach and even a single  

default in the payment of rent committed by the tenant would  

5

make him liable for eviction under Section 9 (1)(ii) of the 1953  

Act.   He argued that in the present case there was a clear  

default on the part of the respondent No.4 to pay rent for the  

period from Kharif 1979 to Rabbi 1986 and therefore he was  

liable to be evicted under Section 9 (1) (ii) of the 1953 Act.  He  

contended that under Section 14-A (i) a landowner desiring to  

eject  a  tenant  under  the  Act  can  apply  to  the  Assistant  

Collector,  First  Grade  and  the  Assistant  Collector  will  

thereafter follow the summary procedure in Section 10(2)  of  

the 1953 Act and eject a tenant.  He vehemently argued that a  

plain  reading  of  Section  14-A(i)  would  show  that  notice  in  

Form ‘N’ was not required to be served where the application  

was for ejectment on any of the grounds mentioned in Section  

9(1) of the 1953 Act.  He submitted that since the application  

of the mother of the appellant before the Assistant Collector,  

First Grade, was for ejectment for non-payment of rent, notice  

in Form ‘N’  under  Section 14-A(ii)  of  the 1953 Act was not  

required to be sent to the tenant and therefore the Assistant  

Collector, the Collector, the Financial Commissioner and the  

High Court have taken an erroneous view that the application  

6

was liable to be rejected because notice in Form ‘N’ had not  

been served on the tenant.  He submitted that this a fit case in  

which this Court should set aside the impugned order of the  

High Court and direct eviction of the respondent No.4 on the  

ground that he has failed to pay rent for a period of five years.

5. In  reply,  Mr.  R.F.  Nariman,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for  the  legal  heirs  of  respondent  No.4,  submitted  

that a plain reading of the application filed by the mother of  

the appellant before the Assistant Collector would show that it  

was an application for recovery of arrears of rent for the years  

1978-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982 amounting to Rs.63/- and  

Section 14-A(ii) of the 1953 Act read with Rule 22 of the 1956  

Rules made it clear that a notice in Form ‘N’ had to be served  

on the tenant to deposit the rent and it is only on failure on  

the part of the tenant to deposit the rent that the tenant is  

liable to be evicted by the Assistant Collector.  Mr. Nariman  

argued  that  the  Assistant  Collector,  the  Collector  and  the  

Financial Commissioner were, therefore, right in coming to the  

conclusion that as no notice in Form ‘N’ for payment of arrears  

of  rent  had  been  served  on  the  respondent  No.4,  the  

7

application  for  eviction  of  the  respondent  No.4  for  non-

payment  of  rent  was  not  maintainable.   In  support  of  this  

contention, he cited the decision of this Court in Kapur Chand  

Jain v.  B. S.  Grewal  & Ors.  [(1965) 2 SCR 36].   He further  

submitted that in any case a tenant will have to be given a  

reasonable opportunity to clear arrears of rent, if any, before  

he is evicted for non-payment of rent.  He explained that in  

this case the respondent No.4 had taken a plea in his written  

statement filed before the Assistant Collector that he had not  

been paying rent because his occupancy rights in respect of  

the land had been declared by the Assistant  Collector.   He  

submitted that as soon as the respondent No.4 found that his  

claim  for  occupancy  rights  in  respect  of  the  land  was  not  

acceptable to the authorities, he deposited the rent before the  

Assistant Collector, Second Grade, Faridabad.  He submitted  

that the respondent No.4 therefore had sufficient cause for not  

paying  the  rent  earlier  and he  was not  liable  to  be  evicted  

under Section 9(1)(ii) of the 1953 Act.  He submitted that the  

mother of the appellant had actually filed a suit under Section  

77  of  the  Punjab  Tenancy  Act,  1887  and  the  Assistant  

8

Collector had also recorded oral evidence of witnesses and had  

not followed the summary procedure laid down under Section  

10(2)  of  the  1953  Act.   He  submitted  that  under  Section  

39(1)(c)  of  the Punjab Tenancy Act,  1887 a tenant could be  

evicted for failure to pay rent only when a decree for an arrear  

of rent in respect of his tenancy had been passed against him  

and such decree had remained unsatisfied.  He submitted that  

in the present case there  is  no decree for  arrear  of  rent  in  

respect of the tenancy of the respondent No.4 and, therefore,  

he was not liable to be evicted under Section 39 of the Punjab  

Tenancy Act, 1887.   

6. Mr. Swarup, learned counsel for the appellant, however,  

submitted  that  the  Assistant  Collector  by  recording  oral  

evidence adduced on behalf of the parties had not caused any  

prejudice to the respondent No.4.  He cited the decision of the  

Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  in  Manohar  &  Ors.  v.  

Financial Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. [2000 (2) PLJ 460] in  

which a Division Bench of the High Court has held that by  

following  a  lengthy  procedure  of  framing  issues,  recording  

evidence  and  considering  the  factual  and  legal  aspects,  a  

9

tenant does not suffer any prejudice whatsoever, rather he has  

a better opportunity to prove his case.   

7. Sections 9(1)(ii), 10(2) and 14-A of the 1953 Act, on which  

the  counsel  for  the  parties  have  relied  upon,  are  quoted  

hereinbelow:

“9(1)(ii) –  Liability of tenant to be ejected.—(1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in any other  law  for  the  time  being  in  force,  no  land-owner  other than a land-owner, who is a member of the  Armed  Forces  of  the  Union  or  a  Non-Resident  Indian shall be competent to eject a tenant except  when such tenant—

(i) ………………………………………………………….

(ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient  cause.

       ………………………………………………………….

10(2) - Restoration of tenant ejected after the  15th of August, 1947.-

(1) ………………………………………………………….

(2) On  receipt  of  an  application  the  Assistant  Collector shall, after giving to the parties notice  in writing and a reasonable opportunity to be  heard,  determine  the  dispute  summarily  and  shall  keep a memorandum of  evidence and a  gist  of  his  final  order  with  brief  reasons  therefor.

1

14-A.  Procedure for ejectment and recovery of  arrears of rents 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 landowner 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 landowner 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 landowner refuses to accept rent from  his tenant or demand rent in excess of what he is  entitled  to  under  this  Act,  or  refuses  to  give  a  receipt,  the  tenant  may  in  writing  inform  the  

1

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  maybe, or both, within 60 days  of the receipt of  the notice.”

8. The first question which arises for decision in this case  

whether the Commissioner who decided the revision in favour  

of the appellant was right in holding that the suit for ejectment  

of the respondent No.4 was under Section 77(3) of the Punjab  

Tenancy Act.  Clause (i)  of Section 14-A makes it clear that  

notwithstanding  anything  to  the  contrary  contained  in  any  

other law for the time being in force,  where the land-owner  

desires to eject  a tenant  under the Act,  he has to apply in  

writing  to  the  Assistant  Collector,  First  Grade,  having  

jurisdiction,  who shall  thereafter  proceed as provided for  in  

Section  10(2)  of  the  1953  Act.   Clause  (ii)  of  Section  14-A  

states  that  notwithstanding  anything  to  the  contrary  

contained in any other law for the time being in force,  where a  

land-owner desires to recover arrears of rent from a tenant he  

has  to  apply  in  writing  to  the  Assistant  Collector,  Second  

1

Grade,  who  shall  thereupon  send  a  notice  in  the  form  

prescribed, to the tenant either to deposit the rent or value  

thereof 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  

and after summary determination in accordance with Section  

10(2) of the Act if the Assistant Collector finds that the tenant  

has not paid or deposited the rent, he shall eject the tenant  

summarily and put the land-owner in possession of the land  

concerned.  Hence, for ejectment of a tenant under the 1953  

Act  or  for  recovery  of  arrears  of  rent  from  a  tenant,  the  

procedure laid down in Section 14-A read with Section 10(2) of  

the Act has to be followed.  The application of the mother of  

the appellant,  in the present case,  was for ejectment of the  

tenant and for recovery of arrears of rent and was really an  

application under Section 14-A of the 1953 Act and not a suit  

under  Section  77(3)  of  the  Punjab  Tenancy  Act,  1887.   A  

reading of Section 10(2) of the 1953 Act shows that under the  

summary  procedure  contemplated  therein  the  Assistant  

Collector is required to give notice to the parties in writing and  

1

reasonable  opportunity  to  be  heard  and  he  is  required  to  

determine the dispute summarily and to keep a memorandum  

of  evidence  and  a  gist  of  a  final  order  with  brief  reasons  

therefor.  On an examination of the records of this case, we  

also  find  that  the  Assistant  Collector  has  followed  the  

procedure laid down in Section 10(2) of the 1953 Act.  Hence,  

the Commissioner was not right in holding that the mother of  

the  appellant  had  filed  a  suit  under  Section  77(3)  of  the  

Punjab Tenancy Act.

9. The real question which we are called upon to decide in  

this  case  is  whether  the  respondent  No.4  was  liable  to  be  

ejected under Section 9(1)(ii) of the 1953 Act.  The language of  

clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 would show that the  

tenant is liable to be ejected if he fails to pay rent regularly  

‘without sufficient cause’.    In Mrs. Raj Kanta v. The Financial   

Commissioner,  Punjab  and  Others (supra),  this  Court,  while  

interpreting Section 9(1)(ii) of the 1953 Act, observed:

“We might add at 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  

1

wants to get rid of the consequences of his default,  he must prove sufficient cause. ……………”  

Thus, where the tenant is able to prove that he had sufficient  

cause for not paying the rent for any period, he can get rid of  

the consequence of ejectment provided in Section 9(1)(ii) of the  

1953 Act.   

10.   We find that in this case in reply to the application of the  

mother of the appellant for recovery of arrears of rent and  

for  ejectment  filed  before  the  Assistant  Collector,  First  

Grade, the respondent No.4 has taken a plea in the written  

statement that his suit for declaration of occupancy rights  

in respect of the land had been decreed in his favour by the  

Assistant Collector and he was not liable to pay rent for the  

land  as  a  tenant.   The  Assistant  Collector  had,  in  fact,  

decreed  the  suit  of  the  respondent  No.4  for  occupancy  

rights  on  07.04.1981.   On  appeal  by  the  mother  of  the  

appellant,  the  Collector  had  remanded  the  case  to  the  

Assistant  Collector  but  the  Assistant  Collector  again  

decreed  the  suit  on  12.11.1982.   The  mother  of  the  

appellant filed an appeal before the Collector who allowed  

1

the appeal on 14.06.1983.  Thereafter, the respondent No.4  

filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division,  

which was dismissed on 31.01.1986.  The respondent No.4  

then moved the Financial Commissioner in revision and the  

Financial  Commissioner  dismissed  the  revision  on  

22.07.1986.   In  the  meanwhile,  the  respondent  No.4  

deposited  the  rent  in  the  Treasury  vide Challan  dated  

05.06.1986.   These  findings  of  facts  in  the  order  of  the  

Assistant Collector, which have not been disturbed by the  

Collector and the Financial Commissioner, clearly establish  

that the respondent No.4 did not pay rent for the land as  

he was pursuing his claim of occupancy rights in respect of  

the land and if his claim was finally allowed he would not  

be  liable  for  rent.   The  respondent  No.4  had,  therefore,  

sufficient cause for not paying the rent for the land and  

was not  liable  to  be  evicted  under  Section 9(1)(ii)  of  the  

1953 Act.  As we have held that the respondent No.4 was  

not liable to be ejected, it is not necessary for us to decide  

whether notice in Form ‘N’ was required to be given to the  

respondent  No.4  under  Section  14-A(ii)  of  the  1953  Act  

1

before ejectment of the respondent No.4.  

11.We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal and we  

accordingly dismiss the same.  No costs.  

.……………………….J.                                                                (R. V. Raveendran)

………………………..J.                                                                (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, December 16, 2010.    

1