SHISHPAL Vs. A L FLETCHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine would dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 482 and 639 of 1965, filed by Shishpal and others, calling in question the legality and propriety of the order of the learned Financial Commissioner, dated 9th January, 1965 (copy Annexure 'D' to the petition) as common questions of law and fact arise in both these petitions.

(2.) It is not necessary to state the facts as the only point that has been urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act to interfere with and set aside the order of the learned Commissioner which was passed after consideration of the entire evidence. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Dhaunkal V. Man Kauri and another, 1970 PunLJ 402 in which some tests have been enumerated on the basis of which the learned Financial Commissioner can interfere with the order of the Commissioner or any other subordinate authority. At this stage it would be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the Full Bench decision to which my attention was drawn, which reads thus :-

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the decision of the Full Bench the relevant portion of which has been reproduced above, I am of the view that the decision of the Financial Commissioner cannot legally be sustained. From the bare perusal of the order of the Commissioner it transpires that he after considering the circumstances and the evidence, found as a fact, that the tenant-respondent had committed default in the payment of rent from Kharif 1959 to Rabi 1961 without sufficient cause. On revision the learned Financial Commissioner set aside this finding of fact after reappraising the evidence himself. This apparently, in view of the law laid down in Dhaunkal's case, was not legally permissible.