CHARAN DASS Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner. He applied for eviction of his tenant, namely, respondent No. 2 on the ground of non payment of rent of Rs. 3300/ -. The Assistant Collector First Grade, Narnaul, decreed the suit and directed the tenant to pay the rent of Rs. 3300.00 along with proportionate costs and gave six months time to the tenant to deposit the rent as decreed. In accordance with the terms of the decree, tenant-respondent No. 2 deposited the sum of Rs. 4116/within the said period of six months but the petitioner contended that the total amount including the costs to be deposited by the tenant amounted to Rs. 4290/ -. Thus, a short fall of Rs. 174.00 in making the deposit was there and, therefore, the tenant made himself liable to be evicted. The Assistant Collector First Grade vide his order dated July, 8, 1981, directed the ejectment of the tenant-respondent No. 2 from the land as he failed to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 4290.00 as he deposited only a sum of Rs. 4116.00 within the stipulated period thereby leaving a balance of Rs. 174.00 and accordingly directed the eviction of tenant respondent No. 2 from the land. The tenant preferred the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner Haryana, who allowed the revision petition and allowed the tenant-respondent No. 2 to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 174.00 along with the counsel fee of Rs. 100.00 by his order dated May 26, 1982. Challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner, the landlord filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Financial Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the order as the tenant failed to avail the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 39 (1) (2) of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1955. He further argued that the costs include within the term of rent. Though the tenant-respondent No. 2 deposited over and above the amount of Rs. 3300.00 which was determined as rent but he failed to satisfy me entire decree within the stipulated period of six months by making a deposit of the entire amount including costs and thus there is a default in payment of rent and, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted and the Financial Commissioner erred in allowing the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Financial Commissioner has no power to extend the time for making deposit and, therefore, the orders of the Financial Commissioner are liable to be quashed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the Financial Commissioner has to exercise his revisional powers as provided in Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. If after examining the record, the Financial Commissioner is of the opinion that it is expedient to interfere with the proceedings or the order or decree on any ground, the Financial Commissioner, may, at any time call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court subordinate to him. Basing on this Sub-section 5 of Section 84, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the revisional powers can be exercised only in terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revisional powers can be exercised by the High Court in case where no appeal lies but a reading of Sub-section 5 of Section 84 of the Act does not debar the Financial Commissioner from exercising his revisional powers, if no appeal is preferred against the impugned order. Under Sub-section 5 of Section 84, the Financial Commissioner can exercise his revisional powers on any of the grounds on which the High Court can exercise his revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, it is only the grounds which enable the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure that are applicable to suo motu powers of revision to be exercised by the Financial Commissioner. The requirement "in which no appeal lies thereto" in Section 115 C. P. C. is not directed to revisions to be filed before the Financial Commissioner. The only requirement for the Financial Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction is that if it appears to him that the authorities below exercised the jurisdiction not vested in them by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. If any one of these three grounds is present, then the Financial Commissioner can certainly exercise his revisional powers even though no appeal is preferred by the aggrieved person. A reading of Section 39 (c) and Sub-section 5 of Section 84 makes it clear that even in the absence of an appeal filed by the aggrieved party, the Financial Commissioner can exercise his suo motu powers of revision even at the instance of the aggrieved party. This view of mine also gets support from the decision of this Court in Amir Chand v. State of Punjab, 1969 P. L. J. 484. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit.