SHIV LAL Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by Shiv Lal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21st of August, 1969 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) Shiv Lal petitioner is a tenant of Niranjan Kumar, respondent No. 5 to the present petition, on Killa Nos. 9 to 12 of rectangle No. 26 and Kila Nos. 13 and 18 of rectangle No. 27. He had been paying rent regularly up to 1961. After 1961 the respondent-landlord started refusing to give receipts to the petitioner and because of that rent was not paid for some harvests. The petitioner filed an application under Section 14-A(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter called the Act) praying that the landlord was not accepting rent and giving the receipts, so he should be asked to accept the rent and give the receipt. This application was filed on 16th May, 1963. On 26th of September, 1963, the landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant under Section 9 of the Act on the ground that he had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause. Earlier to that on 10th of September, 1962, the landlord had given a notice in writing to the tenant-petitioner that he should pay the rent for the crops Kharif, 1961 and Rabi, 1962. On 11th of October, 1963, the petitioner-tenant made another application under Section 14-A(iii). The Assistant Collector ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. His appeal to the Collector succeeded and the application of the landlord was dismissed. The landlord filed an appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner came to a positive finding that the default by the tenant in making payment of the rent was not wilful and was on account of the dispute regarding the issue of the receipt. The fact that the tenant had made an application under Section 14-A(iii) also weighed with the Commissioner. He confirmed the finding of the Collector who had also held that the tenant had reasonable cause for not making the payment at the due time and the application under Section 14-A(iii) was a clear proof of that fact. Both the Collector and Commissioner on the material before them found it as a fact that the failure of the tenant to pay the rent regularly was justified as the landlord was not giving the receipts to the tenant. Dissatisfied with these orders, Niranjan Kumar landlord filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner on a reappraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the tenant-petitioner had regularly defaulted in making the payments without any justifiable reason. He held that the tenant had been given a notice in 1962 and that the application made by him under Section 14-A(iii) was only by way of Pesh Bandi. The Financial Commissioner was influenced by the fact that this application of the petitioner was not followed by a deposit of the rent due. He, thereafter, accepted the revision petition, set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. Dissatisfied with this order, the tenant-petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) Mr. N.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that both the Collector and the Commissioner had on the material before them come to a conclusion that the default in making the payment by the tenant was not wilful and was not without sufficient cause and that considering all the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality in the procedure adopted by these officers has been pointed out or is mentioned in the order of the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner dealt with the case as it was an appeal. It is now well settled that the powers of the Financial Commissioner in revision are analogous to those of this Court in a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This has been so held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Surja v. Hardeva and others, 1969 PunLJ 197. This Court also in Abnashi Lal and another v. Shrimati Joginder Kaur and others,1974 PunLJ 464, has taken this very view. The order of the Financial Commissioner also says that both the Collector and the Commissioner have erred in interpreting the evidence on the file. Even if it is were so, this is no ground for interference in revision. The revisional Courts cannot interfere with the orders of the subordinate Courts only on the ground of a wrong appraisal of the evidence. The Collector and Commissioner had not committed any jurisdictional error. They had not acted with material irregularity in the exercise of this jurisdiction. The orders of these officers were perfectly within jurisdiction. The Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside these orders only because he had a different view of the evidence and came to different conclusions therefrom. The order of the learned Financial Commissioner is thus wholly and patently illegal. I accept this petition, set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner and restore the order of the Commissioner and dismiss the application of the land-owner for ejectment of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition accepted.