- (1.) Nichhatar Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and propriety of the orders of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, the Collector, Ferozepore, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, dated January 30, 1968, March 29, 1968, October 7, 1968, and October 29, 1968, (copies Annexures 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'K' to the petition) respectively.
(2.) The relevant facts as given in the petition with which I am concerned for deciding the controversy that has been raised before me, are as follows :- Nichhatar Singh, petitioner is a tenant of land measuring 25 kanals and 5 marlas situated in village Daudhar, District Ferozepore, under Shrimati Dalip Kaur, respondent No. 5. The land was rented out to him at the rate of Rs. 501- per killa per annum upto the year 1958-59. Thereafter, the landowner-respondent refused to accept rent at the agreed rate. Certain details are given in the petition from which it transpires that a dispute consistently went on between the tenant and the landowner about the rate of rent and both the parties had to approach the appropriate revenue authorities for getting redress. Ultimately, the landowner-respondent filed on application under Section 14-A(i) read with Section 9(1)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on September 29, 1966, for the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute mainly on the ground that he failed to pay rent regularly and that he was in arrears of rent for the crops Rabi 1965, Kharif 1965 and Rabi 1966. The application was contested by the petitioner. The Assistant Collector, First Grade, however, found vide his order, dated January 30, 1968, that the respondent did not pay the produce to the petitioner regularly' as enjoined by law and accordingly passed an order of ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was rejected by the Collector, Ferozepore, vide his order, dated March 29, 1968 (copy Annexure 'B' to the petition) The petitioner's revisions before the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner also met the same fate and were rejected by the said authorities vide their orders, dated October 7, 1968 and October 29, 1968 (copies Annexures 'C' and 'K' to the petition) respectively. But the present petition. as earlier observed, the legality and the propriety of these orders of the revenue authorities have been challenged by the petitioner.
(3.) The only contention that has been raised before me by Mr. H.S. Gujral, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned orders cannot legally be sustained as the revenue authorities have not given a finding that the non-payment of rent regularly was for want of sufficient cause. According to the learned counsel before an ejectment order could be passed against the petitioner, it was incumbent on the revenue authorities to have given a definite finding that failure to pay rent regularly was without any sufficient cause. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. D.S. Chahal, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, that this point was not raised before the Revenue authorities on behalf of the petitioner and as such, it cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time here in, this petition.;