SUBHASH CHANDversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

              [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1087


                     SUBHASH CHAND                                 A
                             v.
               STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 1857 of 2003)
                   DECEMBER 16, 2010
                                                                   B
      [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.)

    Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy:

     Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - ss. 9(1)(ii),     c
14-A and 10(2) - Liability of tenant to be evicted - Application
for recovery of rent and ejectment of tenant -Assistant
Collector holding that the application was not maintainable -
Held: It was an application u/s. 14-A of 1953 and not a suit ul
s. 77(3) of the 1887 Act - Assistant Collector followed the        D
procedure laid down in s. 10(2) for ejectment of a tenant -
Tenant did not pay rent for the land as he was pursuing his
claim of occupancy rights in respect of the land and if it was
allowed, he would not be liable for rent - Thus, tenant had
sufficient cause for not paying the rent for the land -
Meanwhile the tenant deposited the rent - Tenant not liable        E
to be evicted uls. 9(1)(ii) - Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 - s.
77(3).

     The appellant's mother filed an application for
recovery of rent and ejectment of respondent no. 4, the            F
tenant, stating that the latter did not pay the rent.
Respondent No. 4 pleaded that he had filed a suit for
declaration of his occupancy rights, which was decreed
in his favour and, thus, he was not liable to pay rent. The
Assistant Collector, First Grade in his order dated                G
10.03.1995 observed that respondent No.4 had been
declared as the occupancy tenant by order dated
07.04.1981 but on appeal, the Collector held that
respondent no. 4 had ceased to be the occupancy
                           1087                                    H
    1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A tenant; that the appeal of respondent No. 4 was
  dismissed by the Commissioner and his revision petition
  was dismissed by and the Financial Commissioner.
  Meanwhile, respondent No. 4 deposited the rent. The
  Assistant Collector held that the application filed by the
B appellant's mother was not maintainable since notice in
  Form 'N' was not served on respondent No.4 and the rent
  had been paid by him. The appellant's mother filed an
  appeal but the Collector dismissed the same. However,
  the Commissioner allowed the revision of appellant's
C mother holding that the suit had actually been filed under
  Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act and, therefore,
  no notice in Form 'N' was required to be given; and that
  respondent No.4 had admitted in his written statement
  that he had not paid the rent and had deposited the rent
  after the suit for recovery of rent and for eviction was
0
  filed. Aggrieved, respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition
  and the Financial Commissioner allowed the same. The
  appellant then filed a writ petition. The High Court
  dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the appellant filed
  the instant appeal.
E
        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Clause (i) of Section 14-A of the Punjab
  Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 makes it clear that
F where the land-owner desires to eject a tenant under the
  Act, he has to apply in writing to the Assistant Collector,
  First Grade, having jurisdiction, who would thereafter
  proceed as provided for in Section 10(2) of the 1953 Act.
  Clause (ii) of Section 14-A states that where a land-owner
  desires to recover arrears of rent from a tenant he has to
G apply in writing to the Assistant Collector, Second Grade,
  who would thereupon send a notice in the form
  prescribed, to the tenant either to deposit the rent or
  value thereof or give proof of having paid it or of the fact

H
SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE OF Hi\RYANA & ORS. 1089


that he is not liable to pay the whole or part of the rent,      A
or of the fact of the landlord's refusal to receive the same
or to give a receipt; and after summary determination in
accordance with Section 10(2) of the Act, if the Assistant
Collector finds that the tenant has not paid or deposited
the rent, he would eject the tenant summarily and put the        B
land-owner in possession of the land. Thus, for ejectment
of a tenant under the 1953 Act or for recovery of arrears
of rent from a tenant, the procedure laid down in Section
14-A read with Section 10(2) of the Act has to be followed.
[Para 8] [1097-G-H; 1098-A-D]                                    C

    1.2. The application of the mother of the appellant
was for ejectment of the tenant and for recovery of
arrears of rent and was really an application under
Section 14-A of the 1953 Act and not a suit under Section
77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. A reading of              D
Section 10(2) of the 1953 Act shows that under the
summary procedure contemplated therein the Assistant
Collector is required to give notice to the parties in writing
and reasonable opportunity to be heard and he is
required to determine the dispute summarily and to keep          E
a memorandum of evidence and a gist of a final order
with brief reasons therefor. On an examination of the
records of the case, it is found that the Assistant
Collector followed the procedure laid down in Section
10(2) of the 1953 Act. Thus, the Commissioner was not            F
right in holding that the mother of the appellant had filed
a suit under Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act.
[Para 8] [1098-E-G]

    1.3. The language of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of       G
Section 9 shows that the tenant is liable to be ejected if
he fails to pay rent regularly 'without sufficient cause'.
Where the tenant is able to prove that he had sufficient
cause for not paying the rent for any period, he can get

                                                                 H
    1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A rid of the consequence of ejectment provided in Section
  9(1 )(ii) of the 1953 Act. [Para 9) [1099-A-B]

        Mrs. Raj Kanta v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab
    and Ors. (1980) 3 SCC 589, Referred to.

B       1.4. The Assistant Collector in his order recorded that
  the suit of the tenant for occupancy rights had been
  initially decreed, but he lost before the higher authorities
  and meanwhile deposited the rent. These findings of fact
  in the order of the Assistant Collector, which were not
C disturbed by the Collector and the Financial
  Commissioner, clearly establish that respondent No.4 did
  not pay rent for the land as he was pursuing his claim of
  occupancy rights in respect of the land and if his claim
  was finally allowed he would not be liable for rent.
D Respondent No.4 had, therefore, sufficient cause for not
  paying the rent for the land and was not liable to be
  evicted under Section 9(1)(ii) of the 1953 Act. Thus, it is
  not necessary to decide whether notice in Form 'N' was
  required to be given to respondent No.4 under Section
E 14-A(ii) of the 1953 Act before ejectment of respondent
  No.4. [Para 11) [1099-F-H; 1100-A-D]

      Kapur Chand Jain v. B. S. Grewal and Ors. (1965) 2 SCR
  36; Manohar and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana
F and Ors. 2000 (2) PLJ 460 - referred to.
                        Case Law Reference:
        (1980) 3 sec 589          Referred to         Para 4
        (1965) 2 SCR 36           Referred to         Para 5
G
        2000 (2) PLJ 460          Referred to         Para 6
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    1857 of 2003.

H
 SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 1091


     From the Judgment & Order dat3d 4.3.2002 of the High               A
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 3733
of 2002.

     Manoj Swarup, Ankit Swarup, Ashok Anand, Roh it Kumar
 Singh, Anirudh Rajput for the Appellant.                               8 ,
     R.F. Nariman, Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bafaki, Sheela Goel,
 Sarvesh Bisaria, P.C. Sharma, S. Usha Reddy, A. Venayagam
 Balan for the Respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                        c
       A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order
  dated 04.03.2002 of the Division Bench of the High Court of
  Punjab & Haryana dismissing Civil Writ Petition No.3733 of
  2002. During the pendency of this appeal respondent No.4              D
  Ramesh Chand   I
                    Girdhar died on 09.12.2009 and. I.A. No.2 of
  2010 has been filed to bring on record his legal heirs namely,
  Smt. Kiran Girdhar (wife}, Shri Rajeev Girdhar (son}, Shri
. Sandeep Girdhpr (son) and Smt. Ruchi (daughter). This I.A. No.
  2 of 2010 is allowed. I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2010 have been filed
  by appellants claiming to be brothers and sisters of the              E
  appellant and they have prayed to be impleaded in the appeal.
  As the appellant represents the interest of the appellants, if any,
  in the suit property, we reject the prayers in I.A. Nos.5 and 6 of
  2010.
                                                                        F
      2. The facts of this case very briefly are that the mother of
 the appellant filed an application for recovery of rent and
 ejectment of the respondent No.4 before the Assistant
 Collector, First Grade, Ballabgarh, Faridabad. She stated in the
 application that she was the owner of agricultural land                G
 Rectangle No.49, Killa No.8 and 15 measuring 16 Kanals at
 Mauja Baselwa Tehsil in district Faridabad and the respondent
 No.4 was a tenant in respect of this land and the respondent
 No.4 had not paid rent for the land for five years from Kharif
 1977 to Rabbi 1982. She prayed that the respondent No.4 be
                                                                        H
    1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A evicted from the land and a decree for recovery of rent for 3
  years from Kharif 1979 to Rabbi 1982 totalling to Rs.63/- be
  passed. The Assistant Collector issued summons to the
  respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 filed a written
  statement in which he pleaded that he had filed a suit for
B declaration of occupancy rights in respect of the suit land which
  had been decreed in his favour and therefore he was not liable
  to pay rent. After considering the evidence led by the parties
  and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the
  parties, the Assistant Collector in his order dated 10.03.1995
c found that the respondent No.4 had been declared occupancy
  tenant by the Assistant Collector by order dated 07.04.1981 but
  on appeal being filed by the mother of the appellant, the
  Collector had remanded the case to the Assistant Collector by
  order dated 10 .11.1981 and thereafter the Assistant Collector
  again declared the respondent No.4 as the occupancy tenant
0
  by order dated 12.11.1982, but on appeal the Collector set
  aside the order dated 12.11.1982 and held that the respondent
  No.4 had ceased to be an occupancy tenant by order dated
  15.06.1983. The Assistant Collector further found that the
  respondent No.4 carried an appeal to the Commissioner who
E dismissed the appeal by order dated 31.01.1986 and the
  respondent No.4 thereafter filed a revision which was also
  dismissed by the Financial Commissioner by order dated
  22.07.1986. In his order dated 10.03.1995, however, the
  Assistant Collector held that as no notice in Form 'N' had been
F served on the respondent No.4 and the rent had been paid by
  the respondent No.4 on 05.06.1986 the application of the
  mother of the appellant was not maintainable.

       3. The mother of the appellant then filed an appeal before
G the Collector, Faridabad, who dismissed the appeal. She filed
  a revision before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division and the
  Commissioner in his order dated 18.02.2000 held that if the
  suit had been fiied under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures
  Act, 1953 (for short 'the 1953 Act') then notice in Form 'N' was
H required to be given but as the suit had actually been filed under
SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 1093
            [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, no such notice in Form     A
'N' was required to be given. The Commissioner further held
that it was clear from the records of the Assistant Collector,
First Grade, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, that the respondent No.4
had admitted in his written statement that he had not paid the
rent and had deposited the rent after the suit was filed by the     B
mother of the appellant for recovery of rent and for eviction and
accordingly set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and
the Collector by his order dated 18.02.2000. The respondent
No.4 filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner,
Haryana, and the Financial Commissioner by his order dated          c
 14.08.2001 allowed the revision and restored the order of the
Collector. The appellant challenged the order of the Financial
Commissioner before the High Court in Civil Writ Petition
No.3733 of 2002 and the High Court dismissed the writ petition
by the impugned order.
                                                                    D
     4. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the appellant,
submitted that Section 9(1 )(ii) of the 1953 Act provides that a
tenant is liable to be ejected if he "fails to pay rent regularly
without sufficient cause." He submitted that in Mrs. Raj Kanta
v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and Others [(1980) E
3 SCC 589] this Court has held that the words "fails to pay rent
regularly without sufficient cause" in Section 9(1 )(ii) mean that
the tenant should pay rent punctually and consistently without
any break or breach and even a single default in the payment
of rent committed by the tenant would make him liable for F
eviction under Section 9 (1 )(ii) of the 1953 Act. He argued that
in the present case there was a clear default on the part of the
respondent No.4 to pay rent for the period from Kharif 1979 to
Rabbi 1986 and therefore he was liable to be evicted under
 Section 9 (1) (ii) of the 1953 Act. He contended that under F
Section 14-A (i) a landowner desiring to eject a tenant under
the Act can apply to the Assistant Collector, First Grade and
the Assistant Collector will thereafter follow the summary
procedure in Section 10(2) of the 1953 Act and eject a tenant.
He vehemently argued that a plain reading of Section 14-A(i) H
    1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A would show that notice in Form 'N' was not required to be
  served where the application was for ejectment on any of the
  grounds mentioned in Section 9(1) of the 1953 Act. He
  submitted that since the application of the mother of the
  appellant before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, was for
B ejectment for non-payment of rent, notice in Form 'N' under
  Section 14-A(ii) of the 1953 Act was not required to be sent to
  the tenant and therefore the Assistant Collector, the Collector,
  the Financial Commissioner and the High Court have taken an
  erroneous view that the application was liable to be rejected
c because notice in Form 'N' had not been served on the tenant.
  He submitted that this a fit case in which this Court should set
  aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct eviction
  of the respondent No.4 on the ground that he has failed to pay
  rent for a period of five years.
D        5. In reply, Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel
    appearing for the legal heirs of respondent No.4, submitted that
    a plain reading of the application filed by the mother of the
    appellant before the Assistant Collector would show that it was
    an application for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1978-
E   1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982 amounting to Rs.63/- and
    Section 14-A(ii) of the 1953 Act read with Rule 22 of the 1956
    Rules made it clear that a notice in Form 'N' had to be served
    on the tenant to deposit the rent and it is only on failure on the
    part of the tenant to deposit the rent that the tenant is liable to
F   be evicted by the Assistant Collector. Mr. Nariman argued that
    the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Financial
    Commissioner were, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion
    that as no notice in Form 'N' for payment of arrears of rent had
    been served on the respondent No.4, the application for eviction
G   of the respondent No.4 for non-payment of rent was not
    maintainable. In support of this contention, he cited the decision
    of this Court in Kapur Chand Jain v. B. S. Grewal & Ors.
    [(1965) 2 SCR 36]. He further submitted that in any case a
    tenant will have to be given a reasonable opportunity to clear
H   arrears of rent, if any, before he is evicted for non-payment of
SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 1095
            [A.K. PATNAIK, J.)

rent. He explained that in this case the respondent No.4 had         A
taken a plea in his written statement filed before the Assistant
Collector that he had not been paying rent because his
occupancy rights in respect of the land had been declared by
the Assistant Collector. He submitted that as soon as the
respondent No.4 found that his claim for occupancy rights in         8
respect of the land was not acceptable to the authorities, he
deposited the rent before the Assistant Collector, Second
Grade, Faridabad. He submitted that the respondent No.4
therefore had sufficient cause for not paying the rent earlier and
he was not liable to be evicted under Section 9(1)(ii) of the        c
 1953 Act. He submitted that the mother of the appellant had
actually filed a suit under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act,
 1887 and the Assistant Collector had also recorded oral
evidence of witnesses and had not followed the summary
procedure laid down under Section 10(2) of the 1953 Act. He          D
submitted that under Section 39(1 )(c) of the Punjab Tenancy
Act, 1887 a tenant could be evicted for failure to pay rent only
when a decree for an arrear of rent in respect of his tenancy
 had been passed against him and such decree had remained
 unsatisfied. He submitted that in the present case there is no
decree for arrear of rent in respect of the tenancy of the           E
 respondent No.4 and, therefore, he was not liable to be evicted
 under Section 39 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887

     6. Mr. Swarup, learned counsel for the appellant, however,
submitted that the Assistant Collector by recording oral             i=
evidence adduced on behalf of the parties had not caused any
prejudice to the respondent No.4. He cited the decision of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Manohar & Ors. v. Financial
Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. [2000 (2) PLJ 460) in which
a Division Bench of the High Court has held that by following a      G
lengthy procedure of framing issues, recording evidence and
considering the factual and legal aspects, a tenant does not
suffer any prejudice whatsoever, rather he has a better
opportunity to prove his case.
                                                                     H
    1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       7. Sections 9(1)(ii), 10(2) and 14-A of the 1953 Act, on
    which the counsel for the parties have relied upon, are quoted
    hereinbelow:

        "9(1 )(ii) - Liability of tenant to be ejected.-(1)
        Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
B
        time being in force, no land-owner other than a land-owner,
        who is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a
        Non-Resident Indian shall be competent to eject a tenant
        except when such tenant-

c       (i) .................................................................. .

        (ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause.



D       10(2) - Restoration of tenant ejected after the 15th of
        August, 1947.-

        ( 1) .................................................................. .

        (2) On receipt of an application the Assistant Collector
E       shall, after giving to the parties notice in writing and a
        reasonable opportunity to be heard, determine the dispute
        summarily and shall keep a memorandum of evidence and
        a gist of his final order with brief reasons therefor.

F       14-A. Procedure for ejectment and recovery of arrears of
        rents etc. - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
        containerl in any other law for the time being in force, and
        subject to the provisions of Section 9-A,-

        (i) a landowner desiring to eject a tenant under this Act shall
G
        apply in writing to the Assistant Collector, First Grade,
        having jurisdiction, who shall thereafter proceed as
        provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of this Act,
        and the provisions of sub-section (3) of the said section
        shall also apply in relation to such application, provided that
H
SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 1097
            [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

    the tenant's rights to compensation and acquisition of          A
    occupancy rights, if any, under the Punjab Tenancy Act,
    1887 ( XVI of 1887), shall not be affected;

    (ii) a landowner desiring to recover arrears of rent from a
    tenant shall apply in writing to the Assistant Collector, 8
    Second Grade, having jurisdiction, who shall thereupon ·
    send a notice in the form prescribed, to the tenant either
    to deposit the rent or value thereof , if payable in kind or ·
    give proof of having paid it or of the fact that he is not liable
    to pay the whole or part of the rent or of the fact of the C
    landlord's refusal to receive the same or to give a receipt,
    within the period specified in the notice. Where, after .
    summary determination, as provided for in sub-section (2)
    of Section 10 of this Act, the Assistant Collector finds that .
    the tenant has not paid or deposited the rent he shall eject
    the tenant summarily and put the landowner in possession D
     of the land concerned;

    (iii) (a) If a landowner refuses to accept rent from his
    tenant or demand rent in excess of what he is entitled to
    under this Act, or refuses to give a receipt, the tenant may , E
    in writing inform the Assistant Collector, Second Grade,
    having jurisdiction of the fact;

    (b) On receiving such application, the Assistant Collector
    shall by a written notice require the landlord to accept the
                                                                    F
    rent payable in accordance with this Act, or to give a
    receipt, as the case maybe, or both, within 60 days of the
    receipt of the notice."

     8. The first question which arises for decision in this case
whether the Commissioner who decided the revision in favour         G
of the appellant was right in holding that the suit for ejectment
of the respondent No.4 was under Section 77(3) of the Punjab
Tenancy Act. Clause (i) of Section 14-A makes it clear that
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other
law for the time being in force, where the land-owner desires       H
    1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   to eject a tenant under the Act, he has to apply in writing to the
    Assistant Collector, First Grade, having jurisdiction, who shall
    thereafter proceed as provided for in Section 10(2) of the 1953
    Act. Clause (ii) of Section 14-A states that notwithstanding
    anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time
B   being in force, where a land-owner desires to recover arrears
    of rent from a tenant he has to apply in writing to the Assistant
    Collector, Second Grade, who shall thereupon send a notice
    in the form prescribed, to the tenant either to deposit the rent
    or value thereof or give proof of having paid it or of the fact that
c   he is not liable to pay the whole or part of the rent, or of the
    fact of the landlord's refusal to receive the same or to give a
    receipt and after summary determination in accordance with
    Section 10(2) of the Act if the Assistant Collector finds that the
    tenant has not paid or deposited the rent, he shall eject the
    tenant summarily and put the land-owner in possession of the
0
    land concerned. Hence, for ejectment of a tenant under the 1953
    Act or for recovery of arrears elf rent from a tenant, the procedure
    laid down in Section 14-A read with Section 10(2) of the Act
    has to be followed. The application of the mother of the
E   appellant, in the present case, was for ejectment of the tenant
    and for recovery of arrears of rent and was really an application
    under Section 14-A of the 1953 Act and not a suit under Section
    77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. A reading of Section
     10(2) of the 1953 Act shows that under the summary procedure
    contemplated therein the Assistant Collector is required to give
F   notice to the parties in writing and reasonable opportunity to
    be heard and he is required to determine the dispute summarily
    and to keep a memorandum of evidence and a gist of a final
    order with brief reasons therefor. On an examination of the
    records of this case, we also find that the Assistant Collector
G    has followed the procedure laid down in Section 10(2) of the
     1953 Act. Hence, the Commissioner was not right in holding
    that the mother of the appellant had filed a suit under Section
    77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

H        9. The real question which we are called upon to decide
SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 1099
            [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

in this case is whether the respondent No.4 was liable to be             A
ejected under Section 9(1 )(ii) of the 1953 Act. The language
of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 would show that
the tenant is liable to be ejected if he fails to pay rent regularly
'without sufficient cause'. In Mrs. Raj Kanta v. The Financial
Commissioner, Punjab and Others (supra), this Court, while               B
interpreting Section 9(1 )(ii) of the 1953 Act, observed:

     "We might add at the risk of repetition that the use of the
     words 'without suffieient cause' clearly indicates that the
     intention of the legislature was that in order to escape
     ejectment, the tenant must at least be regular in payment           C
     of the rent and if he wants to get rid of the consequences
     of his default, he must prove sufficient cause ................ "

Thus, where the tenant is able to prove that he had sufficient
cause for not paying the rent for any period, he can get rid of          D
the consequence of ejectment provided in Section 9(1)(ii) of
the 1953 Act.

     10. We find that in th_is case in reply to the application of
the mother of the appellant for recovery of arrears of rent and
                                                                         E
for ejectment filed before the Assistant Collector, First Grade,
the respondent No.4 has taken a plea in the written statement
that his suit for declaration of occupancy rights in respect of the
land had been decreed in his favour by the Assistant Collector
and he was not liable to pay rent for the land as a tenant. The
Assistant Collector had, in fact, decreed the suit of the                F
respondent No.4 for occupancy rights on 07.04.1981. On
appeal by the mother of the appellant, the Collector had
remanded the case to the Assistant Collector but the Assistant
Collector again decreed the suit on 12.11.1982. The mother
of the appellant filed an appeal before the Collector who                G
allowed the appeal on 14.06.1983. Thereafter, the respondent
No.4 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala
Division, which was dismissed on 31.01.1986. The respondent
No.4 then moved the Financial Commissioner in revision and
the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision on                     H
    1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A 22.07.1986. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.4 deposited
  the rent in the Treasury vide Challan dated 05.06.1986. These
  findings of facts in the order of the Assistant Collector, which
  have not been disturbed by the Collector and the Financial
  Commissioner, clearly establish that the respondent No.4 did
B not pay rent for the land as he was pursuing his claim of
  occupancy rights i.n respect of the land and if his claim was
  finally allowed he would not be liable for rent. The respondent
  No.4 had, therefore, sufficient cause for not paying the rent for
  the land and was not liable to be evicted under Section 9(1)(ii)
c of the 1953 Act. As we have held that the respondent No.4 was
  not liable to be ejected, it is not necessary for us to decide
  whether notice in Form 'N' was required to be given to the
  respondent No.4 under Section 14-A(ii) of the 1953 Act before
  ejectment of the respondent No.4.

D       11. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal and
    we accordingly dismiss the same. No costs.

    N.J.                                       Appeal dismissed.