The power of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that this power is not meant for correcting mere errors of face or even of law.

1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order of the Financial Commissioner dismissing the petitioners revision and affirming the order of the Commissioner Jullundur Division who had in turn affirmed the order of the Collector who has also upheld the order of the Assistant Collector refusing to allow the petitioner a set off claimed by him.

2. According to the allegations contained in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner Fakri Chand had applied on the 1st March, 1958 under Rule 22 read with Section 14-A(I) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act for the ejectment of tenants from land measuring 36 kanals 8 marlas situated in Tika Sukhar Chaudhrian, Mauza Majra, Tehsil Nurpur. The ground on which the petitioner had claimed ejectment was that the tenants had not paid rent regularly without sufficient cause from 1952 to 1955 and also thereafter from Kharif 1955 to Rabi 1956. The tenants controverted this allegation alleging that they had not refused to pay rent but they could not do so because the petitioner was not residing in the village. They claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation for improvements in case they were ordered to be ejected. During the trial, however, according to the petition, it was admitted by the tenants that they had not paid the rent due. On the question of compensation, it appears that a local commissioner was appointed according to whose report a sum of Rs.1,837,50 nP. was assessed to be the cost of improvements. It was reported that the tenants has planted about 105 sangtra plants, one galgal plant, five berry trees, two mulberry trees and seven Tuhni trees. The Assistant Collector, however, reduced the amount to Rs.1,548/-.

The petitioner had also urged that in accordance with the provisions of Secs.70 and 72 of the Punjab Tenancy Act he was entitled to claim a set off on account of arrears of rent. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Collector did not comply with those provisions and passed an order assessing the compensation at Rs.1,548/- in round figures with the observations that the compensation for the improvements made by the respondents could not be set off in the proceedings before him against the rent for which the applicant should seek his remedy separately. This order was challenged in appeal to the Collector, but the appeal was rejected holding the assessment of compensation by the Assistant Collector to be just and correct. According to the order of the Collector the counsel for Fakir Chand petitioner had contended on appeal that the benefit of fruits derived by the tenants should be deducted out of the compensation, but with this contention the Collector did not agree, holding that the tenants on ejectment were entitled to the cost of improvements under the Punjab Tenancy Act and the planting of fruit trees was an improvement as defined in the said Act. It is alleged in the petition filed in the Court that the Collector was wrong in not allowing a set off even though it was strenuously argued before him.

3. Against the Collector order a revision was taken to the Commissioner where also the question of set off was specifically taken but the revision was rejected without considering this question. The order of the learned Commissioner shows that on behalf of the landlord it was contended that the tenants had already been compensated for improvements, if any, effected by them by the sale of fruits over a number of years. This argument was, however, disposed of by the learned Commissioner by observing that the question agitated related to facts upon which the concurrent findings of the Collector and the Assistant Collector had been given against the landlord and there was no cogent reason to interfere with them. Section 72(c) of the Punjab Tenancy Act on which reliance appears to have been placed before the Commissioner was held not to be applicable to the present case.

4. A further