NICHHATAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER TAXATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nichhatar Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and propriety of the orders of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, the Collector, Ferozepore, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated January 30, 1968, March 29, 1968, October 7, 1968, and October 29, 1968, (copies Annexures 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'K' to the petition) respectively.

(2.) The relevant facts as given in the petition with which I am concerned for deciding the controversy that has been raised before me, are as follows :-

(3.) The only contention that has been raised before me by Mr. H.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned orders cannot legally be sustained as the revenue authorities have not given a finding that the non-payment of rent regularly was for want of sufficient cause. According to the learned counsel before an ejectment order could be passed against the petitioner, it was incumbent on the revenue authorities to have given a definite finding that failure to pay rent regularly was without any sufficient cause. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. D.S. Chahal, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, that this point was not raised before the Revenue authorities on behalf of the petitioner and as such, it cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time here in, this petition.