JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Pale Ram-petitioner, who is tenant, has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.9.1994 (Annexure P14) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No. 1 herein), declining the reference made by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, without hearing the petitioner and the order dated 11.9.1995 (Annexure P15) passed by respondent No. 1, vide which his application recalling the order dated 13.9.1994 and providing him an opportunity of hearing was also dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are the landlords filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on Form-L under Section 14-A(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of non payment of rent for the crops kharif 1989 and rabi 1990. The said ejectment application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he had already deposited the rent pertaining to the aforesaid period by filing an application under Section 14-A (iii) of the Act. He alleged that application under Section 14-A (iii) of the Act for depositing the rent, was filed on 3.7.1990 whereas respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed the ejectment application on Form-L on 20.7,1990, therefore, there was no default in payment of rent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-landlords submitted that the ejectment application was filed by the landlords on 18.6.1990, therefore, the plea of deposit of rent by filing application under Section 14-A(iii) of the Act on 3.7.1990 was liable to be ignored.
3. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed the order of ejectment against the petitioner on 18.12.1992 after holding that the tenant ought to have filed the application for depositing the rent before 15.6.1990 and since the same was filed subsequently, therefore, he cannot be given benefit of the same and hence order of ejectment was passed. The said order was affirmed in appeal by the Collector vide his order dated 15.12.1993. Against both the orders, the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with Section 24 of the Act. The learned Commissioner vide his order dated 15.3.1994 (Annexure P-9) held that the liability of the tenant to pay the rent in the instant case was arising by 15.6.1990 whereas the respondent-landlords filed the ejectment application on the ground of non-payment of rent only on 18.6.1990, i.e., just after three days, even without demanding the rent from the tenant. He held that it was mandatory for the landlords to first demand the rent from the tenant and if he refuses, then file the ejectment application on Form-L under Section 14-A(iii) of the Act. Since the order of ejectment was confirmed by the Collector, therefore in view of the Sub-section (3) of Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, the Commissioner made reference to the Financial Commissioner recommending for setting aside the order of ejectment of Assistant Collector 1st Grade as well as the Collector.
4. The Financial Commissioner on receiving the above-said recommendation from the Commissioner issued notices to the parties for appearing before him. On 13.9.1994, the said matter was fixed before the Financial Commissioner for service as service on the petitioner was not complete. Though on the said date the matter was fixed for service, yet the Financial Commissioner declined the reference made by the Commissioner without hearing the petitioner by passing the following order; –
“Present None for petitioner.
Miss Truin Jain, counsel for Respondent.
ORDER
Heard. Recommendation of Commissioner,
Rohtak Division is declined,
Announced.”
5. When the petitioner subsequently came to know about the aforesaid order, he filed an application on 11.10.1994, for rehearing the matter after recalling the order dated 13.9.1994. The said application was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 11.9.1995 (Annexure P15) by holding that when on 13.9.1994 nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, he decided the case on merits and the reference was declined. In his application dated 7.10.1994, the petitioner did not disclose the reasons as to why he was not present on 13.9.1994. However, in the said order, he made some observations on merits, which are as under:-
“The perusal of the records has shown that the learned Commissioner had made an extra-ordinary legal recommendation by saying that the proceedings had been initiated within 3 days of the due date and was, therefore, acting harshly on the tenant. It is a well settled principle of law that the only duty cast upon the tenant is to make the timely payment of the rents, if the tenant does not fulfil this obligation, the law prescribes the immediate ejectment of tenant. There is nothing prescribed in the law that he should wait long enough even after the due date. That is why the reference dated 15.3.1994 of the learned Commissioner was declined. There is no ground for reviewing the orders which I passed on 13.9.1994.”
6. The aforesaid orders dated 13.9.1994 and 11.9.1995 passed by the Financial Commissioner have been impugned in the instant writ petition on the ground that the impugned orders passed by the Financial Commissioner are violative of the principles of natural justice and are non speaking. It was submitted that on 13.9.1994, the matter was fixed for service and the service was not complete. Therefore, the petitioner was not present on the said date. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner are non speaking as even the contention of the petitioner regarding proviso which was added to Section 14-A of the Act, vide amendment made by Act No. 10 of 1993 vide which a proviso was added on 8.4.1992 which gives concession to the tenant to deposit the rent together with interest either on the first date of hearing or within 15 days from the date of such hearing. Since the ejectment order was passed on 18.2.1992, the effect of the said amendment was not considered by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlords submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. However, the averments made by the petitioner in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition to the effect that on 13.9.1994, the case was listed for service before the Financial Commissioner for the first time and the petitioner was not served in the said case for that date, has not been denied by the respondent-landlords.
8. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 13.9.1994 (Annexure P14) and 11.9.1995 (Annexure P15) passed by respondent No. 1 are liable to be quashed even without going into the merits of the case. It is admitted position that on 13.9.1994 the case was fixed before the Financial Commissioner for service of the petitioner and the service on the petitioner was not effected by the said date. Inspite of this factual position, the Financial Commissioner declined the reference made in favour of the petitioner by the Commissioner, by passing a wholly non speaking order. Once Financial Commissioner decided to entertain the reference made by the Commissioner and issued notices in the same to the parties, then no hearing in the matter could take place without effecting service on the parties. Neither in the order dated 13.9.1994 nor in the subsequent order dated 11.9.1995, it has been found by the Financial Commissioner that service of the reference petition was effected on the petitioner prior to 13.9.1994 and he deliberately did not appear on the said date. In that situation, the declining of the reference by the Financial Commissioner without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice. Merely, while declining the application for recalling the order dated 13.9.1994, the Financial Commissioner made some observations on the merits of the case, could not cover the defect in the impugned order dated 13.9.1994 and made it as a speaking order. I am therefore, of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 13.9.1994 (Annexure P14) and 11.9.1995 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Financial Commissioner are violative of the principles of natural justice and the reference made in favour of the petitioner by the Commissioner has been declined by the Financial Commissioner by passing a wholly non speaking order, and the same cannot be sustained and as such the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 13.9.1994 (Annexure P14) and 11.9.1995 (Annexure P15) are quashed and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner to decide the matter on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
10. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 19.11.2003.
11. Since it is an old matter, it will be appreciated if an endeavour is made to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one year.
