R.L.ANAND,J - (1.) KHEMA and another, petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the orders Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner.
(2.) SHIV Mandir Baniyani (Regd.) through its Secretary filed an application in Form L against the present petitioners before the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rohtak and sought the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent. Learned Assistant Collector vide order dated March 31, 1998 allowed the application holding that despite the respondents having given the time, they have not deposited the batai. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, an appeal was filed before the Collector, who vide order dated June 17, 1998 dismissed the appeal for the following reasons. "I have heard the arguments of both the parties at length and have purused the record of the court below. As per copy of Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 Ex.A-3, Shiv Mandir is the owner of the land in dispute. In this Jamabandi in the column of cultivation the father's name of the appellants has been shown as tenant on batai tehai. As (per) copy of Khasra Girdhari, Ex.A-4, the land was under the cultivation of father of the appellants on 1/3 batai. The appellants have failed to deposit batai tehai. The plea of the appellants that they are cultivating this land as proprietory of the panna. Therefore, there is no question of paying batai. Because as per the copy of the Jamabandi, the Shiv Mandir has become the owner of this land and the appellants are cultivating this land as tenants on batai tehai. They have failed to pay the rent regularly. The plea of the appellants that they are share-holders in the panna is incorrect because when the ownership rights were transferred then they should have challenged it in civil Court and should have got it decided in this regard from civil Court. There is no force in the plea raised by them, therefore, I find this appeal of the appellants without any force and dismiss the same. File be consigned to record-room after compliance." Aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated June 17, 1998, the petitioners again approached the Commissioner, Rohtak, who dismissed the revision vide order dated September 22, 1999, for the following reasons : "I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on 21.7.1999 and the revision petition was fixed for order on 25.8.1999. However, on 23.8.1999, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 had made an application seeking time for filing a certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 11.8.1999, which was allowed and the case was posted for orders today i.e. 22.9.1999. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has tendered the certified copies of the said judgment and decree. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. As already stated above, the petitioners had pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties. Still they were given time to deposit the arrears of rent by 31.3.1998, but they wilfully did not tender it even under protest. The perusal of the entries in the jamabandi for the year 1993-94, to which the presumption of truth is attached, show the petitioners to be tenants under the respondent-mandir on payment of batai tihai. Mere denial of relationship of landlord and tenant is of no consequence and the petitioners have been rightly ordered to be ejected for non-payment of rent. A perusal of the judgment dated 11.8.1999, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rohtak, in civil suit titled "Jage and others v. Pana Sudhar and others" reveals that the petitioners had claimed declaration of their ownership of the disputed property on the basis of adverse possession but it has been negatived by the Court. Consequently, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders of the courts below and hereby dismiss this revision petition being devoid of any merit. Announced in open court." Hence the present writ petition has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance have perused the record of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has attacked the impugned orders firstly on the ground that no evidence was led by the Mandir that any resolution was passed authorising Swami Lal Chand to file the application in Form L. Secondly, the orders passed by the various authorities are non-speaking orders. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel. We have already reproduced above the operational part of the order of the Collector as also of the Commissioner, which show that there is full application of mind. It is clear from the above that petitioners were defaulters in payment of batai and inspite of the fact that chances were given to deposit the money, they have not done so. In these circumstances, the order of ejectment was passed. It is difficult for us to believe that the orders are non-speaking ones. The petitioners have not raised any plea before the Collector or the Commissioner that Swami Lal Chand was not authorised to file the application. The petitioners have not placed on record the grounds of appeal and revision. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Commissioner. This writ petition is without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;