CWP No.4925 of 1986 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4925 of 1986 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.11.2011 Manohar Lal son of Sh. Mool Chand, resident of Guru Har Sahai, Tehsil & District Ferozepur and others. ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab through the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.D.S. Mann, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 5. None for respondent No.6. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? YES 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? YES K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition contains a challenge to the final order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeal) dismissing the claim by the landlord for eviction of his tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent for Kharif 1973 to 1976. The tenant was pleading for a justification for non-payment namely that he had applied for transfer of property by purchase in his capacity as a tenant and his purchase right had been affirmed on 16.05.1972. The counsel for the petitioners would argue that this order was set aside in the year 1974 on 23.04.1974 and CWP No.4925 of 1986 (O&M) [2] that order has still not been modified. According to him, if there was originally a justification for non-payment of rent, it did not avail to a tenant to contend that he could not pay rent after the first order was modified in the year 1974. 3. The Financial Commissioner had taken a note of modification of the order but while rejecting the claim of the landlord for eviction, he has observed that the Commissioner will examine the files relating to the cases of purchase right of tenants in which the applications were disallowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and make suitable recommendations, if warranted by law. This, according to the petitioners, was quite needless and the order of eviction ought to have been passed. The question of whether the tenant would be entitled to purchase right, would be independent of the right of the landlord to obtain eviction especially in a case where the order rejecting the tenants purchase petition had not been modified subsequently. The landlord's right cannot be defeated by a prospect of fresh consideration by the authorities. 4. I accept the contention of the petitioner and I hold that the non-payment of rent after 1974 when the tenant's purchase petition was dismissed, cannot be justified and the landlord is entitled to an eviction. He is also entitled to such relief of lease as either secured by contract or in the manner permissible by law. 5. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed subject to the above directions. NOVEMBER 02, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE