Tenants Facing Eviction Lose Appeal After Admitting One-Third Crop-Share Rent And Failing To Deposit Rs 1.49 Lakh: P&H HC

The appellants were tenants of land purchased by respondents No. 5 to 8 from its previous owner. In eviction proceedings, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade directed the appellants to deposit Rs.1,49,731 with interest, which they failed to do.

The revenue authorities dismissed their challenges, and the learned Single Judge dismissed their writ petition. Before the Single Judge, the appellants had confined their challenge to alleged procedural defects in Form ‘L’.

In the appeal, they also argued that the respondents could not claim *batai* under Rule 11, that rent had been fixed at Rs.10,000 annually, and that Form ‘L’ lacked a date and a required signature.

Rule 11 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956, concerns assigning marks to farms for classification by reference to features in Schedule A and yields in Schedule B; it does not itself govern entitlement to claim *batai*.

The Court noted that the Assistant Collector had assessed *jhar patwar* under the procedure stated to be prescribed by Section 14(a) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953.

The Court also referred to *Gian Chand v. Financial Commissioner*, 1999(3) RCR (Civil) 281, which relied on *Kapur Chand v. B.S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, Punjab*, AIR 1965 SC 1491, and *Bhagirath Ram Chand v. State of Punjab*, AIR 1954 Punjab 167, in reiterating principles concerning a tenant’s liability to pay rent, consideration of the tenant’s conduct, and protection of landlords’ rights.

Rule 11 did not support the appellants’ objection because it addresses farm classification, not the respondents’ entitlement to *batai*; the revenue record also showed that the *jhar patwar* had been assessed under the stated statutory procedure.

The claim of fixed annual rent was contradicted by the appellants’ admissions in pre-emption proceedings and the 2012–2013 *jamabandi*, both recording rent as *batai/tihai*.

As to Form ‘L’, the Court found that two signatures were present and a date was encircled in the details column. The appellants did not establish that any omission invalidated the proceedings or caused prejudice.

The Court also noted their failure to deposit the amount ordered and the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities.

The Court dismissed the appeal. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.