JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J—By this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the quashing of judgments Annexures PA, PB and PC (there being no such Annexure PB on record), dated 10-7-1968 and 12-12-1978, of the Collector Kangra and Financial Commissioner, H. P respectively. 2. The bone of contention between the parties is the tenancy interest of the petitioner in the land measuring 78-18 kanals contained in khasra Nos 3 to 6, 8, 15 to 19, 27, to 33, 35, 39, 71, 74, 75, 80 and 83 suitable in Tika Chhola Khurd Tappa Bajuri Tehsil Hamirpur (hereinafter shortly referred to as the disputed land). 3. Shri Krishan Dayal and others were the previous land-owners and petitioner Roshan Lal was a non-occupancy tenant under them. The present respondents purchased the land in dispute from the previous owners in June, 1967. After the alienation thereof, the previous landowners filed an application under section 14-A (i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 on 20-11-1967 for the recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 421.33 from the petitioner in respect of two harvests, that is, kharif 1966 and Rabi 1967 before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hamirpur. Immediately thereafter the present respondents also filed a similar application for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 181.84 for kharif 1967 on 18-12-1967 before the same authority. The petitioner deposited the rent in the Court of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade aforesaid under protest, alleging that the previous landowners wanted to dispose of the land and thus did not receive the rent nor they were prepared to give a receipt in token of its payment Subsequently the respondents also filed another application in the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hamirpur under section 14-A (i) of the aforesaid Act on 6-2-1968 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed land on the grounds, firstly that the tenant had been a constant defaulter in payment of rent without sufficient cause, secondly that he had not been cultivating the land in a manner customary in the locality and thirdly that a portion of the land had been sub-let by him to some other person. After framing the issues and appraising the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Assistant Collector passed the ejectment order on 23-4-1968 consequent to which the petitioner was ejected on the following day. 4. After framing the issues and appraising the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Assistant Collector passed the ejectment order on 23-4-1968 consequent to which the petitioner was ejected on the following day. 4. The aforesaid judgment Annexure R. 4/1 was appealed against before the Collector. Kangra but petitioner remained unsuccessful Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed in revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh who after hearing the parties, sent up the case with the recommendation that the courts below had in the exercise of their jurisdiction acted illegally and with material irregularity inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded due opportunity to rebut the averments made by the respondents and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade had not appreciated and considered the evidence brought on record brought before him, rather he had passed the order, dated 23-4-1968 in undue-haste by denying the petitioner the right to the assessment of compensation for his property, i. e., a house and standing crop upon the disputed land. The learned Financial Commissioner, did not agree with the recommendations of the Divisional Commissioner so made and consequently after considering the entire record held that no illegality or irregularity had been committed by the trial Court/appellate Court in deciding the case and consequently dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 12-12-1978, Annexure PC. 5. Writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply on the affidavit of Sent Kamla Devi by contending that the petitioner had deliberately made mis-statement of facts, twisted the legal and factual position with an ulterior motive and had not come with clean hands and as such is not entitled to any relief nor is entitled to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. They also averred that there was no error apparent on the face of record. It was contended that they having been put in possession on 24-4-1968, the quashing of the impugned orders would result in serious prejudice to them qua considerable improvements effected by them on the land worth more than Rs 20,000. According to them H. P (Transferred Territory) Tenants (Protection of Rights) Act, 1968, had neither coma into force nor was applicable. Petitioner was a chronic defaulter of payment of rent and there was evidence on record to prove sub-letting. According to them H. P (Transferred Territory) Tenants (Protection of Rights) Act, 1968, had neither coma into force nor was applicable. Petitioner was a chronic defaulter of payment of rent and there was evidence on record to prove sub-letting. Further it was contended that the petitioner could have been legally ejected at any time as compensation so assessed was deposited in the Treasury because of its non-acceptance by him. Thus as contended, his ejectment by revenue courts was legal and valid, it being based on correct appreciation of evidence on record. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and we have been taken through the entire record by the learned Counsel appearing for the rival parties and we have also gone through the entire record of the case as well. We may point out that none of the points urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has any force and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. The first point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that none of the grounds for the ejectment of the petitioner was available to the respondents from the land in dispute under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. 1953. Section 9 of this Act lays down the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted from his land ; one of the grounds amongst other being that "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 fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. In the instant case, admittedly, respondents purchased the land in June 1967. The previous owners had initiated proceedings under the said Act for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of recovery of arrears of rent in respect of two harvests, i. e., kharif 1966 and Rabi 1967 and they also filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 181.64 for kharif 1967 which rent was deposited under protest by the petitioner in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade Hamirpur. 181.64 for kharif 1967 which rent was deposited under protest by the petitioner in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade Hamirpur. Immediately thereafter the respondents had also taken proceedings for the eviction of the tenant on February 6, 1968 in the competent forum under section 14-A (i) of the aforesaid Act, All the Courts concerned whose judgments are required to be quashed by this Court, have after perusal of the evidence emerging from the record before them, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had defaulted in the payment of rent without sufficient cause for nine harvests which was recovered through the court thrice. Rather according to the learned financial Commissioner, the petitioner himself admitted that he did not discharge his obligation to pay the rent to his previous landowners of his own but it was recovered from him through the Court from kharif 1961 to Rabi 1965 and thereafter for rent due from kharif 1967 to Rabi 1967, the landowners had to file another suit which was subsequently followed by another suit for recovery of the rent for kharif 1967. Thus he had held the petitioner to be a habitual defaulter in this regard. This is one of the legal grounds for the eviction of the tenant laid down in section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, referred to above. As such this ground having no force is rejected. 8. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he had been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to section 47 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, which provision pertains to time for ejectment. It lays down that a decree or order for the ejectment of a tenant shall not be executed at any other time than between the first day of May and the fifteenth day of June (both days inclusive), unless the Court making the decree or, where the order is made under section 44, the officer making the order, otherwise directs. Our attention is also drawn to the fact that eviction was passed by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 23-4-1968 and he (petitioner) was evicted from the disputed land on the following day, i. e., 24-4-1968 (without complying with the mandatory provisions of law) in haste and without payment of compensation for the standing crop. Our attention is also drawn to the fact that eviction was passed by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 23-4-1968 and he (petitioner) was evicted from the disputed land on the following day, i. e., 24-4-1968 (without complying with the mandatory provisions of law) in haste and without payment of compensation for the standing crop. In this regard, the perusal of the record shows that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade had specifically directed that petitioner be evicted after the assessment of standing crop, if any. In compliance therewith, a sum of Rs. 213.4 on account of compensation was deposited in the Treasury as per certificate issued by the Treasury Officer, Hamirpur and this aspect of the case was taken into consideration by the learned Financial Commissioner in his judgment Annexure PC. Nothing is clear from the petition or from the record produced before us as to when the assessment of compensation was made and when it was offered to the petitioner or when it was deposited in the Treasury. Thus even if we consider the eviction of the petitioner pursuant to the orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, to be in undue haste, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take the benefit of this technical irregularity particularly when this fact has also been considered by the appellate/revisional authorities having jurisdiction in their sphere and ultimately found that in compliance with the order, the compensation had been assessed. This fact has been assessed by the learned Financial Commissioner on evidence emerging from the record and thereupon he concluded that the case was not decided in haste which can be said to have resulted in some irregularity. This finding cannot be said to be based on no evidence or in clear disregard to the provisions of law nor there is any error apparent on the face of the record. In fact this Court cannot sit as an appellate or a revisional Court. Thus the authorities concerned have not transgressed the statutory conditions in scanning the evidence before them in coming to the aforesaid conclusion. This ground is also not available to the petitioner for seeking the relief in this writ petition. 9. In fact this Court cannot sit as an appellate or a revisional Court. Thus the authorities concerned have not transgressed the statutory conditions in scanning the evidence before them in coming to the aforesaid conclusion. This ground is also not available to the petitioner for seeking the relief in this writ petition. 9. The other contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under the Himachal Pradesh (Transferred Territory) Tenants (Protection of Rights) Act, 1968, the petitioner is entitled to be restored the possession for the reason that he has been evicted from the disputed land otherwise than in due course of law. Further it is urged that the said Act having come into force should have been taken note of by the revenue authorities and proceedings against the petitioner should have been stopped in view of this provision. 10. Admittedly, the aforesaid Act of 1968, came into force on July 26, 1968 in the State of Himachal Pradesh, The narration of the facts show that the petitioner had also been evicted on April 24, 1968, that is, before the coming into force of the aforesaid Act. Section 5 of the aforesaid Act of 1968 lays down as s— "5. Reinstatement of tenant.—-(I) Where a tenant who was in occupation of his holding or any part thereof on or after the 1st day of November, 1966, but has been evicted from such holding or part before the commencement of this Act, otherwise than by due process of law, the competent authority may, on an application made in that behalf by such tenant within three months of the commencement of this Act, initiate action for the re-instatement of such tenant in accordance with the provisions of this section. (2) The competent authority shall give notice to the landowner and to the person, if any, in possession of such holding or part thereof and shall, on being satisfied, after such summary inquiry as he may consider necessary, that the tenant was evicted on any ground or otherwise than by due process of law, order that the tenant be re-instated in such holding or part and that the person in possession of such holding or part be evicted therefrom s Provided that if at the time of making any such order there are any standing crops in such holding or part, the competent authority shall not enforce the order in respect of such holding or part, as the case may be, until the crops are harvested. (3) Every order made by the competent authority, under this section shall not be enforceable in such manner as if it were a decree for eviction passed by a competent Court." 11. The close perusal of the said provision show that the aggrieved person is required to approach the concerned authority for restoration of the possession of the land under his tenancy in writing through an application and a request has to be made within specified time from the time of his dispossession. No such proceedings had ever been initiated by the petitioner for restoration of his possession. In that view of the matter this Court cannot now direct the restoration of the possession when the petitioner himself has failed to follow the procedure specifically provided under the statute within the prescribed period. As such tins point has also no force. 12. Regarding other limb of the arguments that this Act of 1968 should have been taken note of by the appellate/revisional authorities and proceedings of dispossession should have been stayed from his tenancy land, suffice it to state that on account of the dispossession of the petitioner from the disputed land on 24-4-1968 and his failure to seek his remedy for restoration of possession did not attract the applicability of the provisions of the said Act to the facts and circumstances of his case. Thus in that view of the matter, the arguments so advanced is also devoid of force and is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. 13. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms thereof but without any orders as to costs. Thus in that view of the matter, the arguments so advanced is also devoid of force and is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly. 13. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms thereof but without any orders as to costs. Order accordingly.