KALLA ALIAS KANHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KALLA alias Kanha has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders dated November 10, 1994, July 7, 1995 and March 3, 1999 whereby the application filed by Rishi Ram and three others (respondents 2 to 5) in Form L for the ejectment of Jawahar Lal and Dharam Pal (respondents 6 and 7) was accepted. The petitioner claiming himself to be a tenant felt aggrieved and has challenged these orders.

(2.) THE landowners' plea was that Radha Krishan was a tenant on 11 Kanals of land and he had, without their consent, sublet the land to the petitioner. Radha Krishan's sons respondents 6 and 7 also admitted the factum of sub- tenancy in favour of the petitioner. The learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade Faridabad on March 23, 1994 came to the conclusion that the landowners should have given notice to the tenant in Form N. Furthermore, the rent had also not been proved. The ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the dismissal was reverseed vide orders dated November 10, 1994. Learned District Collector Faridabad held that Jawahar Lal and Dharam Pal were non-occupancy tenants Class I while Kanha (petitioner herein) was a non-occupancy tenant Class II and he had not deposited the lagan. Accordingly, the petitioner was liable to be ejected. A revision was filed by the petitioner before the learned Commissioner Gurgaon who also held that there was no evidence that he has a tenant under the landowners, therefore, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the petitioner and the landowners since he was merely a sub-tenant. The appeal was accordingly, declined. Similarly, the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed on March 3, 1999.

(3.) THE controversy in this case was quite categorically settled by the Revenue Courts who upheld that the petitioner was merely a sub-tenant because the revenue records reflected that the tenants were respondents 6 and 7 as they were recorded as "Gair Maurusi Awal" while the petitioner was recorded as "Gair Maurusi Doyam". The petitioner has completely failed to rebut this finding. Since the tenants have not paid any rent, they were liable to be ejected. Accordingly, the Revenue Authorities had no option but to eject the tenants/respondents 6 and 7, alongwith them the petitioner was also necessarily to be ejected being merely a sub-tenant. No error of law or jurisdiction has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, it must be held that this petition is devoid of any merit.