CWP No.2184 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2184 of 1991 Date of decision:04.07.2011 Bhim Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.S.K.Chauhan, Advocate for Mr.R.M.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner lays challenge to orders dated 30.06.1989 and 22.08.1990, passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (Camp at Bhiwani) and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as there is an admitted default in payment of rent for the crop of Kharif 1980, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Bhiwani and the Collector, Bhiwani rightly held that this default is sufficient to order the ejectment of respondents no.5 to 13. The Commissioner was therefore, not justified in making a reference to the Financial Commissioner to set aside these orders. It is further argued that a single default, is sufficient to order ejectment particularly when the tenant fails to putforth any reasonable explanation for the default. It is further submitted that findings recorded by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner about the previous litigation between the parties remain unsubstantiated by CWP No.2184 of 1991 -2- any material on record. No-one is present on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. A due consideration of the provisions of Section 14- A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the reasons assigned by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner while reversing the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and the Collector leave no manner of doubt that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of law or of jurisdiction as would require interference. The petitioner filed an application for ejectment, in form 'L' on the plea that the private respondents have not paid 'Batai' for the crops of Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1979. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Bhiwani, accepted the defence raised by the private respondents that they could not pay the rent in time in view of the civil and criminal litigation pending between 1976 and 1979, rejected the prayer for ejectment for non-payment of 'Batai' for the crops of Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1979 but ordered the respondents' ejectment for non-payment of rent for Kharif 1980. An appeal filed by the private respondents was dismissed by the Collector. The matter eventually came up for consideration before the Commissioner who vide order dated 30.06.1989 recorded a specific finding that though the 'Batai' for Kharif 1980 was not paid in time but as the respondents have shown sufficient cause for the delay, the private respondents cannot be ejected, CWP No.2184 of 1991 -3- and forwarded a reference to the Financial Commissioner for setting aside orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and the Collector. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 22.08.1990, accepted the reference, set aside orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and the Collector and held that delay in payment of 'Batai” for Kharif 1980 was on account of a dispute between parties and therefore, could not invite ejectment of the private respondents. I find no reason whether in fact or in law to differ with the findings recorded by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. It is true that if a tenant fails to offer a cogent explanation, a single default may lead to his ejectment. In the present case, however, and as recorded by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, there was a serious dispute between the parties with respect to possession. The dispute apparently started in 1976 and came to an end in 1980. As a consequence, the delay in not depositing the rent for Kharif 1980 cannot possibly visit the private respondents with adverse consequences much less their ejectment. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 04.07.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE CWP No.2184 of 1991 -4-