VED PARKASH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, passed in R.O.R. No. 30 of 1991-9 2/05/1993, affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, dated 14/08/1992, passed in Appeal Case No.23/91-92, who in turn, had affirmed the order of the District Collector, Gurgaon, dated 20/11/1991, reversing, in appeal, the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Faridabad, dated 21/09/1990, passed in Case No. 181 / 88 of 16-7-1985, whereby the ejectment of Ram Sarup, tenant/ respondent No.5 was ordered from the suit land. He has also challenged the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated 17/05/1993 passed in R.O.R. No.289 of 1991-92 whereby the recommendation made by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, vide his order dated 23/05/1992 for setting aside order dated 5/02/1988 passed by Assistant Collector I Grade ordering ejectment of respondent No. 5 from the disputed land and the order dated 16/08/1988 passed by the District Collector dismissing the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 against the order of the Assistant Collector 11 Grade, was accepted, in this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Ved Parkash, petitioner (hereinafter the landlord) purchased the disputed land from the original owner Sint. Sita Devi widow of Teeka Ram on 14/06/1983 under whom Ram Saroop, respondent No. 5 was a tenant on payment of 1/3rd Batai. The landlord filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the tenant in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palwal. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant had not deposited/ paid rent for the period from Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1984 and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palwal vide his judgment and decree dated 21/09/1990 found that the tenant had defaulted in making payment of the rent and he accordingly ordered his ejectment from the disputed land. The landlord took possession of the disputed land. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palwal, the tenant challenged the same in appeal before the District Collector, Faridabad, who vide his judgment and decree dated 20/11/1991, accepted the tenant's appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palwal and directed the tenant to pay rent for Kharif 1983 to Rabi 1984 i.e. Rs. 3214.00 to the landlord or deposit the same in the treasury. The landlord was directed to deliver back the possession to the tenant. The landlord being aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the District Collector, Faridabad, challenged the same in further appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, in case No. 23/ 91-91. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 14/08/1992. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, the landlord challenged the same in revision bearing R.C.R. No. 30 of 1991-92 under S. 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 11/05/1993.

(3.) The landlord filed an application in Form 'M' as contemplated under S. 14A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) claiming ejectment of the tenant for non-payment of rent for the crops of Kharif 1981 to Rabi 1984. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palwal, vide his order dated 5/02/1988, directed the tenant to deposit Rs. 10,011.75 within one month from the date of the order, failing which he would consider himself to have been ejected. The tenant unsuccessfully challenged the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palwal in appeal before the District Collector, Faridabad, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 16/08/1988. The tenant challenged the order of the District Collector in Executive Revision No. 50 of 1989-90 before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. The Commissioner did not agree with the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the District Collector and the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and made a recommendation to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, for setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector, Faridabad, dated 5/02/1988 and 16/08/1988, respectively. While making recommendation for setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the District Collector, he observed thus:-