The saving clause in section 127 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 preserved the rights acquired under the repealed Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, including the decree for arrears of rent obtained by the landlord.

S.N. Phukan, C.J. –In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged two orders namely the order dated 19th April, 1978 passed by the Collector Solan (Annexure P-2) . and the order dated 24th February, 1982 passed by; the Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-5).

2. It may be stated that the present writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 29th June, 1993 but this order was recalled by sin order dated 21st April, 1994 passed in Civil Review No. 28 of 1993 and the writ petition was restored. Thereafter the matter was heard by us.

3. According to the petitioners, Chet Ram respondent No. 1 on 7th June 1970 got a decree for recovery of arrears of rent for six crops, namely Rabi 1967 to Kharif 1969 against the present petitioners and one Bhalku. The decree was for Rs. 1037 58 P. and the area of the land was 13 Bighas and 3 Biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 7, 10, 16. 17 min, 25, 3i, 42 47 min and 61 situate in village Kamthan-Kalan, Fargana Lachhrang, Bhoj Kot, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan The petitioners were non-occupancy tenants under Chet Ram, respondent No. 1 on payment of l/3rd produce as rent. The suit was contested by the present petitioners as well as Bhalku who died subsequently. The judgment of the revenue court I. e. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kandaghat is at Annexure P-L It is pertinent to mention that the above order was passed under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 which was in force in the area in question at the relevant time As the decree remained unsatisfied, respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 38 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short "the Act") which came into force subsequent to the above order dated 30th October, 1972, Annexure P-l, praying for ejectment of the tenants as provided under section 39 of the Act. The tenants-petitioners filed objections against the said proceedings which were rejected. On l1th January, 1978, an order of ejectment under section 39 of the Act was passed on the ground that the petitioners had failed to satisfy the decree for arrears of rent. An appeal was laid under the Act before the Collector Solan who by his order dated 19th April, 1978 vide Anaexure P-2, upheld the order of eiectment on the ground that the decree for arrears of rent has remained unsatisfied. Thereafter, the tenants petitioners filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner who by his order dated 3rd March, 1980 vide Annexure P-4 recommended to the Financial Commissioner —respondent No. 3 for accepting this revision, However, the Financial Commissioner by the impugned order dated 24th February, 1982 vide Annexure P-5 did not accept the said recommendation and accordingly the revision petition was dismissed. During the pendency of the proceedings before the revenue courts, the petitioners were dispossessed by respondent No, 1 through revenue authorities on the strength of the order for ejectment. Hence, the present writ petition

4. Respondent No. 1 through his reply affidavit has supported both the impugned orders by urging that the Financial Commissioner was right in coming to the conclusion that the ejectment order was rightly and properly passed.

5. In the case in hand it is not disputed that the petitioners were occupying the suit land prior to their ejectment as non-occupancy tenants and before coming into force of the Act, H is also not disputed that the decree for arrears of rent was passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Kandaghat on 30th October, 1972. The Act was published in the Rajpatra on 21st February, 1974, As per sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act, it was to come into force at once i. e. from the date of its publication in the Rajpatra but the Rules, namely, the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 were notified only on 3rd October, 1975.

6. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is th