C.W.P. No.1046 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.1046 of 1992 Date of Decision: 19.04.2011 Resham Singh and others …Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed challenging the orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively. The petitioners purchased the land in dispute from one Ujjagar Singh in the year 1985. At that time the respondents No.4 to 6 were tenants of Ujjagar Singh. After two years the petitioners moved an application for eviction of the respondents No.4 to 6 on two C.W.P. No.1046 of 1992 -2- grounds. First ground was the non-payment of rent and second ground was that the respondents No.4 to 6 had failed without sufficient cause to cultivate the land in the manner and had rendered it unfit. The Assistant Collector and the Collector allowed the petition. On filing of the revision, the Commissioner accepted the same and made a reference to the Financial Commissioner for allowing the revision. The Financial Commissioner having concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted its recommendation and set aside the orders of the Collector and the Assistant Collector. As regards the ground of rendering the land unfit for the purpose it was taken, I find that neither this point was raised before the Courts below nor any ground was taken in the present petition. With regard to the second ground the learned Financial Commissioner has found that the respondents No.4 to 6 had moved an application under Section 14-A(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 on 01.05.1987 for permission to deposit the rent in Court on the ground that the petitioners-landlord were not accepting the rent. It was primarily on the basis of this action of the respondents that the learned Financial Commissioner held that the there was sufficient cause for the respondents for not paying the rent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to rebut this factual aspect. Even in the writ petition it has not been averred that no such application was moved. The argument that C.W.P. No.1046 of 1992 -3- even a single default would entitle the landlord to order of eviction, though attractive at first blush, has to be rejected in view of the fact that litigation erupted between the parties immediately after the purchase of the land by the petitioners. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to take a different view than what has been taken in the orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 and consequently this writ petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 19, 2011 JUDGE ashish