JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. The petitioners, who are the landlords, have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.7.1998 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab vide which the order of ejectment passed against the respondent-tenant was set aside and he was allowed an opportunity to deposit the decretal amount of rent.
2. The petitioners (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioners-landlords’) are the land owners of the land in question measuring 51 Kanals 8 Marias situated in village Ram-sara, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur. The respondent, Hari Ram (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent-tenant) is the tenant on the aforesaid land on 1/3rd batai. On 14.12.1992, the petitioners-landlords filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 14,440/- against the respondent-tenant being 1/3rd share of batai for the crops Kharif 1991 and Rabi 1991 in respect of the aforesaid land on the allegations that the respondent-tenant did not pay the share of the produce to them despite demand and request made by them. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Abohar vide his order dated 29.4.1993 decreed the said suit of the petitioners with costs. A decree for recovery of Rs. 14,440/- as passed and cost was assessed as Rs. 1455.25.
3. Though the suit of the petitioners-landlords was decreed on 29.4.1993 yet the respondent-tenant did not pay the decretal amount. Therefore, the petitioners-landlords filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Abohar under Sections 42, 43 and 44 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tenancy Act’) with a prayer that respondent-tenant, who was the judgment debtor may be given notice in the prescribed form to pay the decretal amount to the petitioners-landlords within a period of 15 days, and if he fails to comply with the direction given in the notice, the ejectment of the respondent-tenant be ordered from the land in question.
4. On the aforesaid application, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Abohar issued a notice to the respondent-tenant in which he directed the tenant to appear before him and explain the reasons why he had not paid the decretal amount. In response to the said notice, the respondent-tenant appeared before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 22.3.1994 through his counsel. On that date, the copy of the notice was given to him with a copy of the application filed by the petitioners-landlords and the case was adjourned to 8.4.1994 for compliance of the notice. On 8.4.1994, the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, the case was adjourned for 15.4.1994. On that date, the respondent-tenant was directed to deposit the decretal amount in government treasury by 19,4.1994. On 19.4.1994, the respondent-tenant did not deposit the decretal amount by stating that the petitioners-landlords were restrained by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur from recovering the share of produce from him. It is submitted here that the co-owners of the petitioners-landlords filed a suit against the petitioners/landlords for permanent injunction restraining them from recovering the share of produce from the tenants, including the respondent-tenant. In that suit, the respondent-tenant was also made a party. Initially, the learned trial Court dismissed the application for interim injunction. However, in appeal, the learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 5,4.1994 issued injunction against the petitioners-landlords restraining them not to recover the share of produce from the tenants, including the respondent-tenant. It is further submitted that the aforesaid order was operative on 19.4.1994, date when the respondent-tenant was directed to deposit the decretal amount by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade.
5. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade did not accept the cause shown by the respondent-tenant for not depositing the decretal amount and passed the order of ejectment against him under Section 44 of the Act on 19.4.1994 (Annexure P-2) by following the decision given by this Court in Buti Shah and Ors. v. The Financial Commissioner and Ors., I 1983 P.L.J. 490. While passing the order of ejectment against the respondent-tenant, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade observed as under:-
“I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of the file, I find that the respondent has failed to deposit the decretal amount within the prescribed period and as such has failed to comply with the directions issued/given to him in the notice. I have also considered the stay order issued by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, has not restrained the respondent from satisfying the decree dated 29.4.1983. The court has merely directed the applicants not to recover any share of produce from the respondent. This does not mean that the respondent is not liable to satisfy the decree in question till the vacation of the stay order. Moreover, in my interim order dated 15.4.1994 have (sic) it has been specifically mentioned that the amount (decretal amount) deposited by the respondent shall not be paid to the applicants/decree holders till the vacation of the stay order issued by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, Keeping all these facts in view and the fact that the respondent has failed to satisfy the decree dated 29.4.1993, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent is liable to be ejected from the land in dispute as per the ruling reported at 1983 P.L.J. P-490.”
6. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Abohar, the respondent-tenant filed an appeal before the Collector, Ferozepur, who, after hearing the parties dismissed the said appeal vide his order dated 14.7.1994. Still aggrieved, the respondent-tenant filed revision against the aforesaid orders before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, who vide his order dated 17.10.1995 recommended the revision for acceptance to the Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab, while observing as under:-
“In my opinion, the courts below have not appreciated the proposition of law as the decretal amount was required to be deposited for further payment to the respondents and the civil court ordered that respondents were restrained from recovering the decretal amount from the petitioner. In that eventuality, there was no justification in compelling the petitioner to deposit the decretal amount in the Government treasury. Had there been no stay order of the Hon’ble civil court, the orders of the courts below would be perfectly right but in view of the civil court order, the impugned orders are not justified. Secondly, f also find substance in the contention that the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 should have been followed for ejectment of the tenant as provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 became redundant after coming into being of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures act, 1953. For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that revision petition be accepted and the orders of the courts below be set aside.”
7. The Financial Commissioner (Taxation), Punjab, after hearing both the parties, accepted the recommendations made by the Commissioner and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade as well as the Collector, dated 19.4.1994 (Annexure P-2) and 14.7.1994 (Annexure P-3), respectively; and provided an opportunity to the respondent-tenant to deposit the decretal amount, as the stay order passed by the civil Court had been vacated. If the respondent-tenant fails to deposit the decretal amount in spite of that opportunity, then it will be open for the petitioners-landlords to file an application for eviction of the respondent-tenant in the appropriate Court of law.
8. The petitioners-landlords have challenged the aforesaid order dated 23.7,1998 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner in the instant writ petition.
9. Shri R.C. Setia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners-landlords submitted that the entire approach of the learned Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner is erroneous. It is totally contrary to the scheme of Tenancy Act to say that the respondent-tenant cannot be ordered to be evicted under the provisions of Sections 42, 43 and 44 of the Tenancy Act with the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land Tenures Act’), as after coming into force of the Land Tenures Act, the tenant can only be evicted on the grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act, and that too by following the procedure prescribed under the said Act. The contention of the learned counsel is that the ejectment of the tenant for not satisfying the decree for arrears of rent in spite of the notice served upon him under Section 43 of the Act is not an ejectment in the strict sense of the terms, but it is a measure of punishment for non compliance of the decree. He further submitted that the non payment of rent without sufficient ground is a ground for ejectment under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Land Tenures Act, but the ground for ejectment of the respondent-tenant in the instant case for not compliance of the money decree for arrears of rent, is not a ground of ejectment in Section 9(1)(ii) of the Land Tenures Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that no ejectment of a tenant can be made under Section 44 of the Tenancy Act when a tenant in spite of notice given to him for compliance of the decree of a Court, has failed to satisfy the decretal amount on the ground that the tenant can only be ejected under the provisions of the Land Tenures Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the tenant against whom a money decree for arrears of rent is standing and he did not satisfy the said decree in spite of the notice given to him under Section 43 of the Act, then such tenant is liable to be ejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued to the extent that such a tenant has even no right to show good cause to the revenue officer for not satisfying the aforesaid money decree and in all circumstances he has to be ejected when he made the default in spite of the notice and did not satisfy the decretal amount. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the ground on which the respondent-tenant did not pay the decretal amount was not justified at all as there was no injunction against the respondent-tenant from paying the arrears of rent and satisfying the decretal amount. If there was any stay against the petitioners-1 and lords from recovering the share of the rent from the respondent-tenant on a suit tiled by co-owners of the petitioners-landlords, it does not give any right of defence or a cause to the respondent-tenant to plead that he was not required to pay rent to the petitioners-landlords. Therefore, there was no justification with the respondent-tenant not to pay the decretal amount on 19.4.1994 when he was directed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to deposit the decretal amount by the said date.
10. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner be set aside and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade as well as the Collector in favour of the petitioners-landlords may kindly be restored.
11. On the other hand, Shri Ravinder Chopra, learned senior counsel for the respondent-tenant submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner. While referring to the Non obstante clause in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no landowner shall be competent to eject a tenant except on the grounds mentioned in the said Section. He submitted that failure to pay the rent regularly to the landlord without sufficient cause is a ground of ejectment of the tenant under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act. Under the said Act, some protection has been provided to the tenant particularly the Proviso added to Section 9 which provides that if a tenant is found in default of payment of arrears of rent, he will be provided an opportunity to tender the said rent within 15 days from the date of first hearing of the application. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid Non obstante clause a tenant cannot be ordered to be ejected under the provisions of the Tenancy Act because after coming into force of the Land Tenures Act, the provisions of the Tenancy Act pertaining to the ejectment of tenant have become redundant and the tenant can only be ordered to be ejected from the land on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent only under the provisions of the Land Tenures Act.
12. In reply to the second submission, learned senior counsel for the respondent-tenant submitted that the respondent-tenant was justified in not paying the decretal amount on 19.4.1994 as a stay of the civil Court was operating under which the petitioners-landlords were restrained by the civil Court from recovering the rent from the respondent-tenant. He submitted that on that date it was not clear as to whom the arrears of rent should be paid as there was a dispute between the co-owners about the recovery of arrears of rent from the tenant. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner.
13. In the instant case, the following two questions of law are to be determined.
(i) Whether the ejectment of a tenant can be ordered under Section 44 of the Tenancy Act when he failed to satisfy the money decree for arrears of rent in spite of the notice given to him under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act for complying with the said decree; and whether the Non obstante clause contained in section 9(1) of the Land Tenures Act bars the ejectment of the tenant on the aforesaid grounds?
(ii) Whether in response to the show-cause notice issued to a tenant under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act for complying with the money decree passed against him, the tenant can show the sufficient cause to the revenue officer for not paying the decretal amount?
14. Before the aforesaid questions are being considered, it will be appropriate to reproduce Sections 42, 43 and 44 of the Tenancy Act and Section 9(1) of the Land Tenures Act, which provide as under: –
“42. Restriction on ejectment.- A tenant shall not be ejected otherwise than in execution of a decree for ejectment, except in the following cases, namely:-
(a) when a decree for an arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed against him and remains unsatisfied:
(b) when the tenant has not a right of occupancy and does not hold for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order of competent authority.
43. Application to Revenue-officer for ejectment.- In any such case as is mentioned in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of the last foregoing section the landlord may apply to a Revenue-officer for the ejectment of the tenant in the case mentioned in the former clause or for the service on the tenant of a notice of ejectment in the case mentioned in the latter clause.
44. Ejectment for failure to satisfy decree for arrears of rent.- (1) On receiving the application in any such case as is mentioned in Clause (a) of Section 42, the Revenue-officer shall, after such inquiry, with respect to the existence of the arrears as he deems necessary cause a notice to be served on the tenant stating the date of the decree and the amount due thereunder and informing him that if he does not pay that amount to the Revenue-Officer within fifteen days from receipt of the notice he will be ejected from the land.
(2) If the amount is not so paid the Revenue-officer shall, subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the payment of compensation, order the ejectment of the tenant unless good cause is shown to the contrary.
Section 9. Liability of tenant to be ejected- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no landowner shall be competent to eject a tenant except when such tenant-
(i) is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or is a tenant of a small landowner; or
(ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause; or
(iii) is in arrears of rent at the commencement of this Act; or
(iv) has failed, or fails, without sufficient cause, to cultivate the land comprised in his tenancy in the manner or to the extent customary in the locality in which the land is situate: or
(v) has used or uses the land comprised in his tenancy in a manner which has rendered, or render it unfit for the purpose for which he holds it; or
(vi) has sublet the tenancy or a part thereof; provided that where only a part of the tenancy has been sublet the tenant shall be liable to be ejected only from such part; or
(vii) refuses to execute a Qabuliyat or a Pata in the form prescribed, in respect of his tenancy on being called upon to do so by an Assistant Collector on an application made to him for this purpose by the landowner.
Explanation.- For the purpose of Clause (iii), a tenant shall be deemed to be in arrears of rent at the commencement of this Act, only if the payment of arrears is not made by the tenant within a period of two months from the date of notice of the execution of decree or order, directing him to pay such arrears of rent.
15. The Tenancy Act provides for determination of certain disputes between the landlord and tenant by the Revenue Officer/Revenue Court. Section 77 of the Tenancy Act provides for institution of suit in respect of certain matters or with respect to filing of an appeal or other proceedings arise out of such suit before the Revenue Court. Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Tenancy Act provides for suits by a landlord to eject a tenant; and Clause (ii) of the said sub-section provides suits by a landlord for arrears of rent or the money equivalent of rent, or for sums recoverable under Section 14 of the said Act. This Act further provides for grounds of ejectment of the tenant. Section 39 of the Tenancy Act provides for grounds of ejectment of occupancy tenant. Clause (c) of Sub-section (i) of Section 39 of the Tenancy Act provides that a tenant, having the right of occupancy, shall be liable to be ejected when a decree for an arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed against him and remained unsatisfied. Section 40 of the said Act provides for grounds for ejectment of tenant for a fixed term and Section 41 of the said Act provides for ejectment of tenant from year to year. Section 42 of the said Act further provides that a tenant shall not be ejected otherwise than in execution of a decree for ejectment, except in the following two cases, namely:-
(a) when a decree for an arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed against him and remains unsatisfied:
(b) when the tenant has not a right of occupancy and does not hold for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order of competent authority.
16. For the aforesaid two grounds, a landlord is not required to file a suit because no such suit can be filed for ejectment of the tenant on the aforesaid two grounds under Section 77 of the Act. Section 76 of the Tenancy Act provides for filing of an application of initiation of proceedings before the Revenue Officer for taking cognizance of any such dispute with respect to which no other Court shall take cognizance. Clause(c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Tenancy Act provides for filing of an application by a landlord under Section 43 for ejectment of a tenant against whom a decree for arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed and remains unsatisfied.
17. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that Section 77 of the Tenancy Act deals with institution of suits before the Revenue Court in respect of certain matters enumerated in that Section. Section 76 of the said Act deals with initiation of applications in another proceeding before the Revenue Officer with regard to the dispute or matter as enumerated in that section. Filing of an application under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act for ejectment of a tenant against whom a decree for arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed and remains unsatisfied, is one of them.
18. Now the question for consideration is whether the non obstante clause contained in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act debars the institution of a suit for ejectment of the tenant and whether it also debars the initiation of proceedings for ejectment of the tenant on the grounds mentioned in Section 43 of the Act, when a tenant failed to satisfy the decree passed against him on account of arrears of rent in a suit filed under Section 77 of the Act. Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act which provides for ejectment of the tenant in summary proceedings opens with the words “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no landowner shall be competent to eject a tenant except on the grounds” mentioned in that Section. In this Section, a tenant can be ejected on the grounds if he fails to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause. For getting a tenant ejected on this ground, the landlord has to establish that the tenant has failed to pay rent regularly and that too without sufficient cause. Simply because a tenant did not pay the rent no such ejectment application can be filed against him. The only remedy available to a landlord in that situations to file a suit for recovery for rent under Section 77 of the Tenancy Act and the Revenue Court can pass a decree against the tenant for payment of amount equivalent to the arrears of rent in spite of recording a finding whether there was sufficient cause or not. If a decree has been passed against a ten-ant for arrears of rent and the tenant did not satisfy the decree, then a right is provided to the landlord which is not a measure of ejectment of a tenant but a measure of punishment on the tenant for non-compliance of the decree. That is why, Section 42 of the Tenancy Act provides that no tenant shall be ejected otherwise than in execution of a decree for ejectment. But in certain cases, even though there is no decree of ejectment against a tenant, yet he can be ejected when he did not satisfy a decree for arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy passed against him. I am of the opinion that the ejectment of the tenant for non-compliance of a decree passed against him for arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy is not a measure of ejectment of a tenant but actually it is a measure of punishment to the tenant for non-compliance of the money decree passed against him by the Court of competent jurisdiction. This view of mine is being supported by the following observations made by this Court in Buti Shah case (supra):-
“In the first place, it is contended that, in the suit, relief was claimed under three heads, one, was a simple money decree; the second, asking for room to put the landowners in possession in place of the tenant; and the third, cashing on the default of the tenant in not making payment of the arrears of rent without sufficient cause. With regard to the first relief, it was countered that the decree with regard thereto had to be subjected to the fetters of Section 42 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent, as a measure of legal caution. Now, Section 42 of the said Act puts a restriction on ejectment in the matter of execution of a decree for arrears of rent. It provides that when a decree for an arrears of rent in respect of a tenancy has been passed against the tenant and remains unsatisfied, then a notice is required to be given to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent, failing which an order has to be passed ejecting the tenant therefore. This measure in strict sense is that of a punishment for non-compliance of the decree. In other words, it is not a measure of ejectment in the strict sense, the primary object being to recover arrears of rent. The analogous provision of law can well be found in Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, where the prominent motive of the landowner, approaching the officer is to recover arrears of rent. On that score, the fair stance adopted by Mr. Sarin, has well answered the objections of the learned counsel for the respondent, and, here that portion of the decree determining money liability does not at all affect the other portions of the decree which provide the reasons for the decree of ejectment.”
19. Therefore. I am of the opinion that the non obstante clause contained in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act will not affect the institution of proceedings under Sections. 42(a), 43 and 44 of the Tenancy Act for ejectment of the tenant because he failed to satisfy the decree inspite of the notice given to him for compliance of the decree. This kind of dispute/matter is not a matter pertaining to the ejectment of the tenant and only the matter pertaining to the ejectment of the tenant contained under the Tenancy Act will become redundant as the same will be covered under Section 9 of the Act and no tenant can be ejected except on the grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act. But as far as the ejectment of the tenant on the ground maintained in Clause (a) of Section 42 of the Tenancy Act is concerned, it will not be hit by the Non obstante clause of Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act and the Revenue Officer has the jurisdiction to order the ejectment of such tenant undef the aforesaid Section under the Tenancy Act.
20. The learned senior counsel for the respondent-tenant, Shri Ravinder Chopra referred two decisions of this Court in Gangal Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Anr., 1980 P.L.J. 123 and Khem Chand v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and Ors., (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 316 and submitted that a suit for ejectment filed under Section 77 of the Tenancy Act on the grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act will not be maintainable as only the prescribed authority under the Land Tenures Act has the jurisdiction to order eviction of the tenant on the grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act and any orders passed by the Revenue Courts under Section 77 of the Tenancy Act for ejectment of the tenant on the grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act is wholly without jurisdiction.
21. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant and perused the aforesaid decisions cited by him. In Khem Chand’s case (supra), this Court has observed that default in payment of rent or sub-letting the tenanted premises is not a ground for eviction under Sections 39 and 40 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, no suit can be filed under Section 77 of the Act for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non payment of rent or sub-letting. Non payment of the rent and subletting are the grounds of eviction of the tenant under the Land Tenures Act. The said Act provides for an application to be made for ejectment of the tenant under Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act. Section 14-A of the said Act provides for the procedure for disposal of such application filed for eviction of the tenant. The Revenue Court acting under Tenancy Act has no jurisdiction to order eviction of the tenant on the grounds mentioned in the Land Tenures Act. It is only the authority who has been prescribed in the Tenures Act alone to order the ejectment of the tenant under Section 9 of the said Act. It was held that no Revenue Court acting under Section 77 of the Tenancy Act can certainly order eviction of the tenant under Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid proposition. While seeking remedy under the Tenancy Act, the landlord must satisfy that a tenant is liable to be ejected from the premises on a ground different than that provided under the provisions of Land Tenures Act. It is for the landlord to establish that the protection provided to the tenant under the Land Tenures Act was not available to him as he is not seeking the ejectment of the tenant on the grounds mentioned in the Land Tenures Act. Therefore, there is no hindrance in ordering his eviction on the grounds enumerated under the provisions of Tenancy Act.
22. This Court in Rallu v. The Addl. Financial Commissioner etc., 1959 P.L.J. 138 has held that the remedies available to the landlord for ejectment of his tenant under the Tenancy Act or under the Land Tenures Act are parallel and it is open to him to avail of the either remedy: and there is nothing under the Land Tenures Act which can lead one to infer that the legislature intended impliedly to bar the landlord’s remedy to seek eviction of his tenant under the Tenancy Act.
23. In Gangal Singh’s case (supra), this Court has held that a suit under Section 77 of the Tenancy Act on the grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the Act was competent, but after passing of the Land Tenures Act, a tenant can be ejected only on the grounds given in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act. But in Khem Chand’s case (supra), this Court held that the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to order the ejectment of a tenant in a suit titled under Section 77 of the Tenancy Act on the grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act. This judgment has been subsequently overruled by the Division Bench of this Court in Faquira and Ors. v. Khem Chand and Ors., (1999-2)122 P.L.R. 65, wherein it has been held that in a suit under Section 77 of the Tenancy Act, a tenant can be ejected on any grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act.
24. Even otherwise, as mentioned earlier, in the instant case the petitioners-landlords did not file any suit under Section 77 of the Tenancy Act for ejectment of the tenant for non payment of rent. They had initiated proceedings for ejectment of the tenant under Clause (a) of Section 42 of the Tenancy Act, which a Revenue Officer is empowered to hear under Section 76 of the said Act. I have also come to the conclusion in the aforesaid paragraphs that under the Land Tenures Act there is no provision for ejectment of a tenant on the ground when a decree for recovery of arrears of rent remains unsatisfied. For that purpose, a punishment has been provided for ejectment of a tenant for not complying with the decree passed against him. Since in the instant case the ground of ejectment of the respondent-tenant is not the failure to pay the rent in a suit filed under Section 77 of the Tenancy Act, but his ejectment has been sought on the ground that he has failed to satisfy the decree of arrears of rent in spite of the notice given to him for compliance of the same. Therefore, in my opinion, such kind of ejectment, which has been ordered under Section 42(a) read with Section 44 and Section 76 of the Tenancy Act, the provisions contained under the Land Tenures Act are not applicable and the Revenue Officer is competent to order the ejectment under the Tenancy Act.
25. Now, the second question arises whether a tenant is straightway liable to be ejected from the premises in case he fails to satisfy the decree in spite of the notice given to him under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act for compliance of the said decree, or he can show to the Court any reasonable cause for not satisfying in the said decree. A bare reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Tenancy Act makes it clear that the Revenue Officer shall order the ejectment of such tenant if the decretal amount is not paid by him unless tenant shows good cause to the contrary. The words “order the ejectment of the tenant unless good cause is shown to the contrary” used in Sub-section (2) clearly indicate that the Revenue Officer can refuse to order ejectment of the tenant on the aforesaid ground if the tenant shows some good cause to it. In the instant case, the tenant when called upon by show-cause notice to satisfy the decree of the arrears of rent and when he was directed to deposit the amount in terms of the said decree, he explained to the Court the reason for which he did not deposit the amount of decree, i.e., a stay of the civil Court was operating against the petitioners-land lords vide which they were restrained from recovering the arrears of rent from the respondent-tenant in a suit filed by the co-owners. Admittedly, the respondent-tenant was a party in that suit and admittedly the said injunction order was operating against the petitioners-landlords on the relevant date, i.e., 19.4.1994. Though, there was no injunction in favour of the respondent-tenant to the effect that he was not liable to pay rent to the petitioners-landlords, yet there was a clear injunction against the petitioners-land lords to recover the arrears of rent from the respondent-tenant. On the relevant date, it was not certain which of the landlord is entitled to recover the arrears of rent from the respondent-tenant. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the respondent-tenant was justified in not tendering the rent to the petitioners-landlords. The said stay granted by the civil Court was vacated when the matter was pending before the Financial Commissioner. Therefore, the Financial Commissioner accepted the recommendations of the Commissioner and provided an opportunity to the respondent-tenant to deposit the decretal amount before the Revenue Court. The said order was passed on 23.7.1998 and the respondent-tenant deposited the entire decretal amount on 8.8.1998. In view of this fact. I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.