JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J. (Oral):- Challenge has been made by the petitioner to the order Annexure P-l dated 4th of July, 1994, passed by the Collector, Rampur Bushaher and confirmed by the Commissioner vide order dated 30th of March, 1996, Annexure P-2, with certain modifications. 2. The admitted facts are that one Gurdas was given two rooms on rent in the temple premises at the rate of 25/- per month. The agreement is dated 9th of August, 1984 and was to expire on 9th of July, 1985. In case of default in the payment of rent he was further liable to pay Rs. l/- per day as penalty after 7th of the succeeding month. 3. Admittedly, Gurdas died before the expiry of the term mentioned in the rent note. The lease deed could be renewed after 9th of July, 1985 and admittedly, has not been renewed. His daughter, on his death, has come to occupy the premises in question and is occupying the same till date. It was further found that she has further un-authorisedly occupied some land around those two rooms which land belongs to the temple. The rent of these two rooms was enhanced to Rs. 75/- per month by the respondents and the charges for the land have been assessed at Rs.1000/- per month. 4. Notice under Section 4(1) and 7(3) of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Evidence and Rent Recover), Act, 1971 was issued to the petitioner to pay the amount specified therein, failing which the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The proceedings were initiated in the court of the Collector, Rampur Bushaher. Admittedly, the petitioner appeared, engaged a counsel and also filed a reply to the notice. On 6th of June, 1994, request was made by the respondents for filing rejoinder and the same was directed to be filed on 4th of July, 1994. Surprisingly, neither the petitioner nor her counsel appeared before the Collector and she was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. The respondents, in the given situation, led evidence and closed their case. Vide a separate order of that date, ejectment of the petitioner was ordered and she was further directed to deposit the amount found due, failing which the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 5. The respondents, in the given situation, led evidence and closed their case. Vide a separate order of that date, ejectment of the petitioner was ordered and she was further directed to deposit the amount found due, failing which the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 5. Appeal was filed before the Commissioner laying challenge to the order passed by the Collector and in the order passed by the Commissioner it was found that the amount determined against the petitioner was excessive. The same was reduced to Rs. 12,225/-. On my asking, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to state as to whether this amount has actually been deposited by the petitioner or not 6. Mr. Verma contends that in-fact, the Collector was not holding the court on 4th of July, 1994 and the order is anti-dated. In further support of this contention, reliance is being placed on the statement of the witnesses, recorded from the side of the respondents and on that page no date is mentioned. 7. It is further being argued that the order was dispatched to the petitioner almost after one year, which could be seen from the endorsement made at the end of the order which is dated 2nd of August, 1995. 8. It is also being stated by Mr. Verma that no notice as envisaged in Section 4 was served on the petitioner. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties - at length and on careful examination of the impugned orders and the records, I find mat the petitioner has not made out a case for re-opening the matter again in view of the fact that she appeared, engaged a counsel and filed reply as well and strangely absented on 4th of Jury, 1994. 10. In case what the learned counsel states at the Bar is correct, an application should have been made to the Collector immediately after the petitioner had come to know of the impugned order stating of the facts and the Collector would have enquired into the matter. 11. I am not prepared to accept the contention raised by Mr. Verma for the simple reason that none of the contentions has been raised before the Commissioner. Be that as it may. 12. 11. I am not prepared to accept the contention raised by Mr. Verma for the simple reason that none of the contentions has been raised before the Commissioner. Be that as it may. 12. As the impugned orders has resulted in ejectment of the petitioner and in view of the fact that the case was adjourned for filing of the rejoinder on the request having been made by the respondents, the speed with which the matter was disposed of on that very date, after recording evidence of a witness present in court, calls for some introspection. All what the petitioners counsel states is that the petitioner be granted one opportunity to defend herself and even if she was absent on the date the order should not have been passed straight way ordering her ejectment. 13. It is purely in the interest of justice that I consider this request of the petitioner to be genuine. It is not a case which calls for interference by this court to under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but keeping in view the broad principle of enquity justice and fair play. I am of the considered view mat the petitioner deserves to be afforded one more opportunity to defend herself before the Collector, Rampur Bushaher. The impugned orders are consequently, set aside and the case is sent back to the Collector for decision-fresh on merits after affording one opportunity to both the parties to lead whatever evidence, that is, desired to be led by them. This will, however, be subject to deposit of Rs. 12,225/- by the petitioner, as ordered by the Commissioner within 1-1/2 months from today, failing which the impugned orders shall stand as they are. The petitioner shall further deposit the charges atthesameratedueafter30th of March, 1996 up to date within 1-1/2 month, that is, on or before 20th of February, 1998. All out efforts be made by the Collector to finally dispose of the matter by the end of February, 1998. If either of the parties is unable to conclude its evidence on one date and in case a case is made out for further grant of time, one case adjournment shall be granted to conclude evidence. All out efforts be made by the Collector to finally dispose of the matter by the end of February, 1998. If either of the parties is unable to conclude its evidence on one date and in case a case is made out for further grant of time, one case adjournment shall be granted to conclude evidence. If either of the parties is unable to conclude its evidence on two adjournments, the evidence of that party shall be deemed to be closed by an order of the court and no further adjournment shall be granted in any situation. 14. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Collector, Rampur Bushaher on 8th of December, 1997, where after the concerned court shall proceed to dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made above in this judgment. 15. Copy of this order is directed to be sent to the concerned court forthwith. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 16. Copy be made available to all the parties dasti on usual terms.