KEHAR SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 3511 of 1971 and 3867 to 3873 of 1971, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all the petitions. I am stating the admitted facts in Civil Writ No. 3511 of 1971, filed by Kehar Singh and others, which are as follows :-

(2.) The petitioners are tenants under respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for the last more than 16 years. In the year 1968, various applications for ejectment were filed in Form L for the ejectment of the petitioners in all the petitions on the plea that they had not paid rent from Kharif 1964 to Rabi 1968, without any sufficient cause. The applications were contested by the petitioner-tenants. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, who tried the applications dismissed the same by one consolidated order dated the 10th June, 1969, copy Annexure 'C' to the petition holding that no default in the payment of the rent had been established by the landowners. On appeal by the landowners, the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, was set aside by the landowner vide his order dated the 16th February, 1970, and the ejectment of the petitioners was ordered on the ground that they had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause. On second appeal by the tenants, the order of the landowner was set aside by the learned Commissioner, Jullundur Division, vide his order dated the 6th October, 1970. On revision filed by the landowners, the learned Financial Commissioner, restored the order of the landowner and passed ejectment order against the petitioners. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners calling into question the legality and propriety of the order of the learned Financial Commissioner, dated the 30the August, 1971, Copy Annexure 'F'.

(3.) The only contention which has been raised before me by Mr. H.S. Wasu, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in revision the learned Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Commissioner, which was passed after considering the entire evidence on the record. According to the learned counsel, the learned Financial Commissioner could have interfered only if the subordinate Revenue authorities had exercised jurisdiction not vested in them by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularities. In support of his contention the learned counsel places reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Dhaunkol v. Man Kauri and another, 1970 RajdhaniLR 376. On the other hand it is contended by Mr. H.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the private respondents that the order of the Commissioner was purely conjectural, that material provisions of law were not taken into consideration and that the learned Commissioner had exercised jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that these petitions are without any merit. The learned Commissioner while allowing the appeal of the petitioners dealt with the matter thus :-