- (1.) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 21.3.1990 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby he has set aside orders passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Bawani Khera, the Collector, Bhiwani and the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Bhiwani, vide order dated 15.11.1985,ordered ejectment of respondent No.2 from the land in Rect No. 431, Killa No.2/3(1-0)9(8- 4) total measuring 9 Kanals 4 Marlas, situated in village Baliali, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani, by recording a finding that the latter is a habitual defaulter in payment of share of produce At the time of filing of the petition for ejectment, the share of produces for Kharif 1982 and 1983 was due. The order of ejectment was affirmed by the Collector, Bhiwani and the Commissioner, Hisar Division Hisar, but these orders have been set aside by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana on the ground that when a landlord takes resort to proceedings for recovery of rent, it does not raise a presumption that the tenant has failed to pay rent regularly in terms of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It is argued that the fact that a landlord has to resort to the proceedings in Form 'N' of Section 14- A(ii) clearly establishes that the tenant is not paying rent regularly and is, therefore, liable to ejectment in terms of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Act. It is further submitted that as the proceedings under section 14-A(i) and Section 14-A(ii) of the Act are under separate circumstances and therefore, resorting by the landlord to initiate proceedings for recovery of rent, does not disentitle him to initiate proceedings for ejectment. The Financial Commissioner, has, in essence, held that if a landlord resorts to a proceeding under section 14-A(ii) of the Act, he shall not have resorted to proceedings under section 14-A(i) of the Act.
(3.) Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that it is correct that the provisions of sections 14-A(i) and 14-A(ii) of the Act, are operative in different spheres. The provisions of Section 14-A(i) of the Act confers a right on a landlord to seek ejectment for non-payment of rent, whereas section 14-A(ii) of the Act, empowers a landlord to recover arrears of rent. Once the landlord has proceeded to file an application for recovery of rent and the tenant does not pay the rent so determined, he shall be ejected summarily by putting the landlord in possession of the land concerned. It is further submitted that though sections 14-A(i) and 14-A(ii) of the Act, provide separate remedies but the consequence of both the sections is ejectment of the tenant if he refuses to pay the rent so determined. It is argued that as the landlord, admittedly, filed application for recovery of rent and the rent, as assessed, was deposited, the fact that the landlord merely has to resort to seek for recovery of rent, would not lead to an inference that the tenant is liable for ejectment under section 14-A(i) of the Act. It is further submitted that finding recorded by the Financial Commissioner that if the landlord proceeds under section 14-A(ii) of the Act, proceedings under section 14-A(i) of the Act are rendered infructuous, is legally correct interpretation of provisions of the Act.;