Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that Shri Sanatan Dharam Pathshala, Jhajjar-respondent No.5, claiming itself to be owner/landlord(for brevity “the landlord”) of the land in dispute, moved an application, directing Dalel Singh son of Bhartu Singh-petitioner-tenant(for short “the tenant”) to execute the Qabuliatnama/Pattanama, in the prescribed form, pertaining to his tenancy and for fixation of the maximum rent payable by him, as determined in the prescribed manner, in respect of the land in question, invoking the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) and Section 12 of The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”).

2. The case set-up by the landlord, in brief, insofar as relevant was that, although the tenant has been cultivating the suit land at fixed lagan/very old rate of Rs.60 per annum, but since now there is a custom of providing 1/3rd share in the produce(Batai-Tihai), so, he(tenant) is liable to pay 1/3rd share in the produce in this regard. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the landlord claimed that the tenant be directed to pay the Batai-Tihai and accordingly, to execute a Qabuliatnama/Pattanama and in case of his failure, he be ejected from the suit land in this context.

3. The tenant contested the claim of the landlord and filed the reply, inter alia, pleading that, he has been cultivating the land in question as a tenant, at a fixed annual rate of rent with mutual agreement of both the parties and the landlord is not entitled to 1/3rd share in produce, pertaining to his tenancy. It was claimed that since no Qabuliatnama between the parties was ever executed, so, the landlord cannot claim 1/3rd share in the produce(Batai-Tihai) in this connection and he prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. The parties to the lis, in order to substantiate their respective pleas, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. After taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (respondent No.4), determined 1/3rd(Batai-Tihai) and directed the tenant to execute/submit Qabuliatnama, in regard to the payment of Batai-Tihai of the land in dispute, within a period of one month, failing which, order of ejectment was passed, by way of impugned order 20.05.2004(Annexure P/1).

5. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P/1) of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the tenant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Collector, Jhajjar(respondent No.3) by virtue of impugned order dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure P/2).

6. Again, dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P/2) of the Collector, the tenant filed the revision petition, which met with the same fate and was dismissed by The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak(respondent No.2), by means of impugned order dated 30.11.2006(Annexure P/3). The further second revision petition filed by him(tenant) was also dismissed by The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh(respondent No.1), through the medium of impugned order dated 26.07.2007(Annexure P/4).

7. The petitioner-tenant still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders of the authorities below and preferred the present civil writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and legal provisions with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect.

9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the tenant was paying the rent in cash since long and now by executing the Qabuliatnama, he could not be directed to pay 1/3rd Batai-Tihai, under Section 9 of the Act, which amounts to increasing the rent, so, the authorities below committed a mistake in fixing 1/3rd B