- (1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the orders dated 8.8.1983 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar recommending the case to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) for upsetting the orders dated 27.12.1982 and 1.2.1983 passed by the authorities below and to grant time to the tenant for depositing the amount of expenses, and dated 24.4.1984 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh whereby he had accepted the recommendation made by the Commissioner and set aside the order dated 27.12.1982 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade ordering ejectment of respondent No. 5.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner was owner and landlord of the land measuring 23 kanals 13 marlas, situated in Village Bishanpura, Tehsil and District Jind, on which respondent No. 5 was a tenant on payment of rent at the rate of 1/3rd batai of the total produce. The petitioner filed a suit before respondent No. 4 under Section 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for brevity "the Act") for recovery of rent/batai against respondent No. 5 who vide order dated 25.5.1981 passed a decree of Rs. 2780.45 P against respondent No. 5 and granted him six months' time to deposit the same. It was pleaded that respondent No. 4 while passing the above said order inadvertently could not include the batai for the kharif 1978 and the petitioner being aggrieved went in appeal before the Collector, Jind (respondent No. 3) which accepted the appeal and remanded the case to respondent No. 4 for recording a finding with regard to batai for kharif, 1978 and also the non-awarding of the costs of the case to the petitioner. Thereupon, respondent No. 4 vide order dated 31.5.1982 passed a decree in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 268.67p on account of batai for kharif, 1978 and Rs. 911.50p as costs and directed that the decretal amount would be paid within six months and in case of failure, the tenant would be ejected in accordance with law. On failure of respondent No. 5 to deposit the decretal amount within that period of six months, the petitioner moved an execution application and at the same time, respondent No. 5-tenant moved an application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") for extension of the time limit fixed for the deposit of the decretal amount before respondent No. 4. According to the said application (Annexure P-1), the only reason stated by respondent No. 4 for extension of time was that the certified copy of the decree dated 31.5.1982 was not made available to him and, therefore, he could not deposit the amount in time.Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 27.12.1982 rejected the application of respondent No. 5 holding that no legal provision had been shown under which the limitation for deposit of the decretal amount could be extended. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 5 approached the Collector, Jind, who vide order dated 1.2.1983 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 approached the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar by way of revision who vide order dated 8.8.1983 recommended the revision to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana, Chandigarh for upsetting the above said orders dated 27.12.1982 and 1.2.1983 passed by respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively and also made a reference to grant time to respondent No. 5-tenant to deposit the decretal amount beyond the statutory period of six months. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana-respondent No. 1 vide order dated 24.4.1984 accepted the recommendations made by respondent No. 2 and set aside the order dated 27.12.1982 passed by respondent No. 4 regarding ejectment of respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 1 further observed that the period spent in the litigation may be excluded while reckoning the period prescribed for depositing the amount due. Hence, the present civil writ petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.;