Surinder Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition seeks to impugn the decision of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated February 18, (sic), as per which the said Court reversed the Finding of the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the sole ground that the Appellate Authority could not have placed reliance upon the report of the Local Commissioner as he bad not given notice to the parties before visiting the spot.
(2.) THE facts may be briefly noticed. The petitioner Hukam Chand filed an application under the Act for the eviction of Ganga Ram, Ram Partap and Harphul respondents on various grounds, including the ground that Ganga Ram aforesaid had sublet the demised premises to Ram Partap and Harphul respondents. The Rent Controller vide his decision dated September 4, 1974, rejected the application but on appeal, the Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner), Narnaul as per order dated November 22, 1974, found that the allegation of subletting had been proved The Appellate Authority, therefore, ordered the eviction of the tenant The latter, however', filed a Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner, whose verdict as contained in the order Annexure P/3, has already been noticed above. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Financial Commissioner by submitting that the same suffers from a patent illegality inasmuch as the Financial Commissioner had not applied the law as laid down by this Court on the question of issue of notice by the Local Commissioner before proceeding to the spot. It is material to note here that as noticed by the Appellate Authority, the Local Commissioner had been deputed only to go and check up at the spot if a certain Sign -Board with the name of the Firm Arya Pustak Bhandar was affixed outside the shop in dispute, or not. It is not disputed that the Local Commissioner did not issue any notice before proceeding to the spot. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that in case a notice had been issued by the Local Commissioner, the tenant would have easily managed to remove the Sign -Board and the purpose of the visit of the Local Commissioner would, thus, have been frustrated The counsel has also relied upon Inder Kumar Jain v. Durga Dass and another, 1981 (1) R.C.J. 450 and Mahabir Parshad Verma v. Dr. Surinder Kaur, 1979 (1) R.C.J. 9 in which it has been held by this Court that even if the Local Commissioner does not issue notice before visiting the spot, his report cannot be ruled out of consideration No authority to the contrary has been brought to my notice by the opposing counsel. The learned Financial Commissioner was, therefore, wrong in holding that on account of the absence of notice, the report of the Local Commissioner should have been excluded from consideration. There being no other ground considered by the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the decision of the Appellate Authority, the order passed by it (Annexure P/3) is not sustainable. The said order is, therefore, quashed. As a necessary consequence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner) Narnaul, dated November 22, 1974, is affirmed. The tenant is, however, allowed one month's further time with effect from today to vacate the premises and hand over its possession to the petitioner landlord.
(3.) THE Writ Petition stands accepted with the above result. There shall be no order as to costs.;