Civil Writ Petition No. 3853 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3853 of 2010 Date of Order: 05.03.2010 Krishan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner Appeals-1, Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Suneet Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 22.01.2009, 12.08.2005, passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab and Collector, Ferozepur. The petitioner filed an application for ejectment of his tenants for non-payment of Batai for Sauni, 2000 and Hadi 2001. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade accepted the prayer for ejectment on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in the deposit of the rent. Aggrieved by this order, the tenants filed an appeal. The Collector, accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade by holding that as the tenants have paid the rent, they cannot be ejected. The petitioner filed an appeal. The Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Collector and restored the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. In a revision, filed by the tenants, the Financial Civil Writ Petition No. 3853 of 2010 -2- Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Collector and held that as the tenants have paid rent, they can not be ejected. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the tenants have deposited rent the delay in the deposit of rent would invite an order of ejectment. The Financial Commissioner, therefore, had no jurisdiction to hold that the default was insufficient to order ejectment. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold in favour of the petitioner. As, admittedly, rent has been paid and received by the petitioner, the mere fact that there was some delay in its payment would not entitle the petitioner to an order of ejectment. The Financial Commissioner has considered the dispute in its entirety, and has after a considered appraisal of the facts held against the petitioner. I find no reason to differ with the view of Financial Commissioner and the Collector. Dismissed. March 05, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE