Subhash Chand vs State Of Haryana & Ors

2. The facts of this case very briefly are that the mother of the appellant filed an application for recovery of rent and ejectment of the respondent No.4 before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Ballabgarh, Faridabad. She stated in the application that she was the owner of agricultural land Rectangle No.49, Killa No.8 and 15 measuring 16 Kanals at Mauja Baselwa Tehsil in district Faridabad and the respondent No.4 was a tenant in respect of this land and the respondent No.4 had not paid rent for the land for five years from Kharif 1977 to Rabbi 1982. She prayed that the respondent No.4 be evicted from the land and a decree for recovery of rent for 3 years from Kharif 1979 to Rabbi 1982 totalling to Rs.63/- be passed. The Assistant Collector issued 3 summons to the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 filed a written statement in which he pleaded that he had filed a suit for declaration of occupancy rights in respect of the suit land which had been decreed in his favour and therefore he was not liable to pay rent. After considering the evidence led by the parties and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the Assistant Collector in his order dated 10.03.1995 found that the respondent No.4 had been declared occupancy tenant by the Assistant Collector by order dated 07.04.1981 but on appeal being filed by the mother of the appellant, the Collector had remanded the case to the Assistant Collector by order dated 10.11.1981 and thereafter the Assistant Collector again declared the respondent No.4 as the occupancy tenant by order dated 12.11.1982, but on appeal the Collector set aside the order dated 12.11.1982 and held that the respondent No.4 had ceased to be an occupancy tenant by order dated 15.06.1983. The Assistant Collector further found that the respondent No.4 carried an appeal to the Commissioner who dismissed the appeal by order dated 31.01.1986 and the respondent No.4 thereafter filed a revision 4 which was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner by order dated 22.07.1986. In his order dated 10.03.1995, however, the Assistant Collector held that as no notice in Form `N' had been served on the respondent No.4 and the rent had been paid by the respondent No.4 on 05.06.1986 the application of the mother of the appellant was not maintainable.

3. The mother of the appellant then filed an appeal before the Collector, Faridabad, who dismissed the appeal. She filed a revision before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division and the Commissioner in his order dated 18.02.2000 held that if the suit had been filed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short `the 1953 Act') then notice in Form `N' was required to be given but as the suit had actually been filed under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, no such notice in Form `N' was required to be given. The Commissioner further held that it was clear from the records of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, that the respondent No.4 had admitted in his written statement that he had not paid the rent and had deposited the rent after the suit 5 was filed by the mother of the appellant for recovery of rent and for eviction and accordingly set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector by his order dated 18.02.2000. The respondent No.4 filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, and the Financial Commissioner by his order dated 14.08.2001 allowed the revision and restored the order of the Collector. The appellant challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner before the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3733 of 2002 and the High Court dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.

11.We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal and we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.