- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner rejecting a reference made by the Commissioner in favour of the tenant that the ejectment sought at the instance of the landlord could not be lawfully carried out before the Assistant Collector and the Collector. The landlord was successful in securing an ejectment under the provisions of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1956. The grounds of eviction were nonpayment of rent and use of property as having been rendered unfit for the purpose for which it was leased and the fact that the tenant was in possession of more than 5 standard acres of land, while the landlord was in possession of less than the permissible limit. The Additional Collector and the Collector dealt with only the issue of non-payment of rent and the fact that the landlord was in possession of less land than the permissible area, while the tenant was in possession of more than 5 standard acres. The Commissioner's intervention in favour of the tenant was not accepted by the Financial Commissioner who affirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector and the Collector that the tenant has been in possession of the property for more than three years and they had been proved the default of payment of rent.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the tenant contends that the issue whether tenant had been given possession for a period longer than three years would not by itself afford a ground of eviction and Section 8 is not have the provision which can be invoked for eviction but landlord must be able to refer to any one of the ground permissible under Section 7 or the 7(A) of the Act. The learned counsel argued that if the ground of eviction was non-payment of rent, such order cannot be passed in terms of Section 71(b) proviso without providing an opportunity to the tenant to pay arrears of rent within a further period of six months from the decree or order directing ejectment. I can immediately find that the authorities have failed to advert to the proviso and treated merely the non-payment as entitling landlord to secure an eviction the order of eviction could not have been passed without opportunity to pay the arrears of rent within six months. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner directing an ejectment on the ground of non-payment cannot therefore be sustained.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of landlord-respondents urges that even apart from the non-payment of rent, the landlord had claimed that the tenant had constructed a room in the demised property and he had rendered it unfit for the purpose for which it was leased to him. There was not even denial of the fact that the tenant had put such a construction. The impugned orders do not advert to this ground while ordering eviction. In this situation, the matter would required to be examined firstly on the grounds stated by the authorities in the orders and on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties in that regard.;