LPA No.274 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.274 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: March 01, 2011 Shri Hanuman Mandir Sudhar Samiti,Kaithal ...APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL .. Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. ... SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The Hanuman Mandir Sudhar Samiti, Kaithal, who is the landlord, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant for setting aside the order dated 4.9.2008 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, has been dismissed. This appeal is barred by limitation. In this regard, though the applications for condonation of delay of 83 days in filing and 28 days in re- filing the appeal have been filed, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the case. In this case, the appellant filed an ejectment application against respondent No.5 for his ejectment from the land in question on the ground of sub-letting. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade dismissed the said LPA No.274 of 2010 (O & M) -2- application vide order dated 27.7.2004 while recording the finding that the alleged sub-tenants are the real brothers of respondent No.5 and they are helping and cultivating the land for him because he is a handicapped person. On appeal filed by the appellant before the Collector, the case was remanded with the direction that the respondent-tenant should lead evidence in negative to prove that his brothers are not cultivating the land in question as sub-tenants. Though the said order was upheld by the Commissioner, but the Financial Commissioner set aside the said order while coming to the conclusion that onus cannot be shifted to the tenant to prove the negative. The order of the Financial Commissioner was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition (CWP No.5155 of 2009), which was dismissed. During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed that the respondent-tenant is a handicapped person and the alleged sub-tenants are his real brothers. Keeping in view these facts, without further commenting on the matter as it will prejudice either of the parties before the revenue authorities, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Financial Commissioner, which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 01, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE