CWP No.8183 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8183 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: March 30, 2011 MURARI S/O ALAH ...PETITIONER VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. JAI VEER CHANDEL, ADVOCATE FOR MR. ARUN JAIN, SR.ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. S.S. GORIPURIA, DAG, HARYANA. MR. GOPI CHAND, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The tenant who is entitled to security of tenure under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 is challenging the order of ejectment passed by the authority directing an ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent. The other ground which had been taken by the landlord was that there had been a subletting without express authorization. The subletting had not been in respect of the entire extent, but only to an extent of 25 kanals and 3 marlas and in respect of 64 kanals and 4 marlas retained by him, he was allowed to continue by the 1st order that was reversed, however, in appeal. The ejectment order with reference to the portion which was sublet is not challenged before me. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the CWP No.8183 of 1990 -2- petition had been filed by the tenant offering to pay the rent from the year 1974 to 1978 and only after his petition, the landlord filed an application for ejectment. This Court has passed the order on dated 17.9.1991 directing the arrears of rent from the year 1974-75 to be paid upto the year 1991 and had also issued direction that amounts shall be paid periodically. This Court directed that if the order was not complied with and there was a default in the payment of any of the installment, the stay itself would stand vacated. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to state the present status of whether he had complied with the order and where there exists any arrears of rent to pay. Counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 states that amounts have not been paid in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kanta vs. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, reported as 1980 PLJ 347. A default ranging from one to several years when the tenant was unable to show sufficient cause, he would give a valid cause to an order for ejectment. The default during the relevant period when the order was passed has been noticed by the Financial Commissioner in his order and he has observed that he has not paid the rent from the year 1974 to 1978 and it was only when he had filed an application on 6.12.1978, the tenant deposited the rent. The Commissioner had observed that even at the time when the offer of deposit was made, the tenant had not deposited the rent for the portion of the land which he had sublet and passed the order of ejectment. The order of ejectment was made in such a situation where admittedly there was a default to one portion which had been sublet and was, therefore, justified and conforms to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. CWP No.8183 of 1990 -3- 4. The order of eviction is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. March 30, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE