SUBHASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only grievance made by the learned counsel is that the finding of the Financial Commissioner that as the notice in Form 'N' had not been issued to the tenant before the proceedings had been initiated, the ejectment order was bad in law and was contrary to the judgments of two Division Benches of this Court in Manohar and others v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2000(4) RCR(Civil) 124 (P&H) (DB) : 2000(2) PLJ 460 and Faquira and others v. Khem Chand and others, 1999(2) RCR(Civil) 143 (P&H) (DB) : 1999(1) PLJ 275. The facts of the first cited case were totally different. In that case, in proceedings arising under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, the matter had been compromised before the Assistant Collector and the tenant had undertaken to vacate the land in case of failure to make payment. The tenant, however, did not make the payment, on which an eviction order was passed by the Collector. The objection raised that the ejectment order was not sustainable as the notice to tenant in Form 'N' calling upon him to deposit the rent had not been issued, was of no consequence in the light of these facts. Likewise in the case of Faquira and others (supra), there was no finding to the effect that the issuance of notice in Form 'N' was not required in case of an ejectment of a tenant. We thus, find no merit in the petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.