DHAPPAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOM Lal respondent herein filed an application under Section 9 (1) (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (for short 'the Act') on Forum 'l' seeking ejectment of the writ petitioner from land measuring 79 kanals 11 marlas as fully detailed in para 2 of the writ petition, before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Fazilka on the ground that the tenant, the petitioner herein has failed to pay rent for the crops Kharif 1984 to Rabi 1987 without any sufficient cause. Matter was considered by the Assistant Collector and he by his order dated 13th September, 1988, Annexure P. 1 came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein was in arrears of rent for the crops Rabi 1985. Kharif 1986 and Rabi 1987 at the time of filing of the ejectment application in Form 'l' and has not paid the same. He consequently ordered ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent for the crops indicated above, without any sufficient cause. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, the petitioner filed appeal which was disposed of by the Collector, Ferozepur by order dated 23rd May, 1989, Annexure P. 2. He came to the conclusion that oral evidence produced by the appellant could not be relied upon and the assistant Collector rightly ordered ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute on the ground of non-payment of rent without sufficient cause. Revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner by order dated 29th January, 1992. Annexure P. 3. Learned Commissioner also after appreciating the evidence concurred with the conclusion arrived at by the Assistant Collector. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and he filed revision before the Financial Commissioner. Revision filed before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed by order dated 1st June, 1994, Annexure P. 4. The Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that nothing was urged before him to justify any interference in the revision. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the tenant.

(2.) IN response to the notice of motion, the respondent-landlord has filed written statement. Case of the landlord is that the petitioner has failed to pay ren without any sufficient cause. His further stand is that not only this, the petitione has not paid any rent since Kharif 1987 and as on date, an amount of more than rupees three lac is due from the petitioner to the answering respondent on account of arrears of rent.