MANOHAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were tenants on the land of respondent No. 5. They did not pay the rent from Rabi 1983 to Rabi 1988. The fifth respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Faridabad framed the issues and tried the suit. A finding in favour of the present respondent was returned on all the issues. Aggrieved by the decree, the petitioners appealed to the Collector. The appeal was partly accepted. It was held that the present petitioners should be given time to pay the rent. Consequently, vide order dated February 22, 1996, the Collector directed the present petitioners "to pay the rent as batai tihai on or before 15.4.1996 according to the crop failing which they were to be deemed to have been evicted." A copy of this order is at Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. The petitioners did not pay. They filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. The authority noticed the sequence of events. It took into consideration the fact that "a compromise was effected between (sic) Court to deposit rent upto 15.4.1996." The petitioners (sic) the payment. Thus, the Court held that "such a tenant does not deserve any sympathy and no further opportunity can be given for depositing the rent as decreed by the Collector. In accordance with the condition imposed by the Collector, the tenants are deemed to have been ejected for non-payment of rent." The petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. This petition was dismissed in limine. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the officers in the hierarchy of the revenue department, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) IN response to the notice of motion, a written statement has been filed by the fifth respondent.

(3.) SO far as the first argument is concerned, it may only be noticed that the Assistant Collector had framed the following issues :