HAR SARUP Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is by two tenants Har Sarup and Bir Singh against the order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh. The other respondents are the two landlords Sukh Lal and Balak Ram and the fourth respondent is Haria who exchanged his holdings with Sukh Lal and Balak Ram. On the 1st of May, 1958 the landlords made an application for the eviction of the tenants under Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act on the ground that they had continuously failed to pay the rent. On the 16th of July, 1959 the tenants made an application under Section 18 of the Act for the purchase of the land on the ground that they had been tenants for more than 6 years. The Assistant Collector who dealt with both these applications by his order dated the 16th of March, 1962 held that the tenants were not qualified for purchase under Section 18 because they were not tenants for a continuous period of 6 years, before the application. With regard to the ejectment matter he found that there was default by the tenants and consequently, he ordered the eviction. The net result was that the landlords' petition was allowed and the tenants' petition was dismissed. Against this decision the tenants filed two appeals to the Collector. The Collector upheld the order of the Assistant Collector with regard to the landlords' eviction application but he partly reversed the order of the Assistant Collector with regard to the tenants' application under Section 18 of the Act. His finding was that with regard to an area of 62 kanals and 10 marlas the possession of the tenants was for a period of over 6 years from the date of the application. In view of this finding he modified the ejectment order and ruled that from 62 kanals and 10 marlas, the petitioners will not be ejected. Against this decision the landlords appealed to the Commissioner and the tenants filed an application for revision. The tenants' application was dismissed and the landlords' appeal was allowed. The Commissioner found that with regard to 62 kanals 10 marlas of land the petitioners had failed to prove their continuous possession for a period of more than 6 years before the application. Against this order the tenants' moved the Financial Commissioner in revision and the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revisions. The Financial Commissioner held that in view of the acceptance of the landlords' application for ejectment of tenants, subsequent application under Section 18 of the Act could not be considered and as the tenants were being evicted there would be no question of their getting the land by purchase under Section 18. It is against this order of the Financial Commissioner that the present petition is directed.

(2.) Mr. Roop Chand rightly did not contest the order of eviction. Moreover, it cannot be challenged in the present proceedings before me. The question which fell for determination before the subordinate Tribunals was one of fact and their decision on that question is final and cannot be called in question under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the decision being by competent Tribunals constituted under the Act. With regard to the application filed under Section 18 of the Act, Mr. Roop Chand has not contested the finding with regard to 65 kanals 4 marlas but he has challenged the finding with regard to 62 kanals 10 marlas. His contention is that the finding of fact was not examined by the Financial Commissioner nor did he affirm the finding given by the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner, as I have already stated, decided the petition on a totally different footing. The question whether the tenants should be allowed to purchase the land measuring 62 kanals 10 marlas depends on the determination of the fact whether they are tenants for a period of more than 6 years. The Commissioner has decided against them on this matter but as there is no decision by the Financial Commissioner it will be proper, before the matter is considered further, to invite his decision on the matter because it is his decision which will be final on the question of fact. It is for this reason that I have thought it fit to remit this case to the Financial Commissioner to determine this matter as well and I order accordingly. As soon as this matter is determined, the Financial Commissioner, will return the case to this Court for final determination.

(3.) The costs will abide the event.