CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated 8.8.1988 Annexure P1 passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Namaul directing the ejectment of the petitioner and order dated 17.4.1984 passed by the Collector, Narnaul dismissing the petitioner's appeal.

(2.) In brief, the facts leading to the passing of the above said orders are that the petitioner was a tenant under Phool Chand respondent No.2 in 5 Bighas and 6 Biswas of land situated in Narnaul. Respondent No.2 had filed a suit for recovery of rent of Rs.5085.58 P for the period Kharif 1977 to rabi 1979. This suit was decreed and the arrears of rent were required to be deposited within six months. The decree which was passed, also required the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 1500.50 P. Admittedly the petitioner deposited the rent as indicated but did not pay the costs which led respondent No.2 the filing of an execution application on the ground that the decree had not been complied with and therefore , the petitioner was liable to be ejected. This application was accepted by the Assistant Collector last Grade, Narnaul on 8.8.1983 and the Collector. Narnaul following the view taken by the Financial Commissioner Revenue in R.C.R. 30 - Bhagwan v/s. Charan Dass etc. and R.O.R. 16 of 1982 -83 Chander v/s. Phool Chand rejected the appeal. This necessitated the petitioner to challenge the order by way of this petition.

(3.) The solitary contention, on which the interference is being sought with the impugned orders, is that according to Sec. 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1955 (in Short 'the 1955 Act'), a tenancy can be terminated if the tenant fails to pay rent. Admittedly, the tenant has deposited the arrears of rent and, therefore. the rigours of the above Sec. would not be attracted to the present case merely on account of his failure to deposit the costs that were awarded in the suit for recovery of the rent.