JUDGMENT K. S. Garewal, J. - This case relates to a dispute between the tenants and the landowners under whom they held land on lease. Petitioners herein are Swaran Singh and three others claiming to be the tenants of respondents 2 to 8 and plead that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was one Tara Chand who was a big landowner and the land in dispute was a part of his surplus area, which had been so declared under the provision of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, in 1962. It is further claimed that the petitioners had been cultivating the land before partition, had not committed any default, but after the land had been declared surplus, the respondents were left with no right or title in the land which duly vested in the State Government and a mutation No. 1705 to that effect had been duly sanctioned in the name of the State Government and as such their relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exit. 2. The contention of the tenants was considered in the ejectment proceedings instigated by respondents 2 to 8 by filing an application in Form L. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Zira on April 15, 1994 and it was held that "the respondents cultivated the land under the applicants, they did not pay the share of the produce to the applicants without sufficient cause" and the tenants were ordered to be ejected from the land In dispute. They filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Coinmissioner-cum-Collector, Ferozepur, which was dismissed on October 20, 1999. Their revision before the Commissioner, Ferozepur, was likewise dismissed on February 28, 1997. Their petition under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 read with Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, was also rejected by the learned Financial Commissioner on May 6, 1999. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the aforementioned orders (Annexures P-1 to P-4) whereby they have been ordered to be ejected from the land. 3. Respondent 1 has filed a written statement controverting the averments made in the petition. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 have also filed a separate written statement. Respondents 5 to 8 were absent despite service and were proceeded against ex-parte. 3. Respondent 1 has filed a written statement controverting the averments made in the petition. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 have also filed a separate written statement. Respondents 5 to 8 were absent despite service and were proceeded against ex-parte. According to the respondents they were the successors-in- interest of Tara Chand, the original landowner, who died in 1977. It was admitted that Tara Chand was a big landowner and some area had been declared surplus in 1962 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, however, as regards the petitioners it was categorically stated that they came into possession of the disputed land only in 1980 as tenants and not before partition of the country as alleged. 4. The petitiones Counsel has argued that undisputedly the land was declared surplus. In 1962. The petitioners being the tenants on this land were entitled to continue in possession without payment of any rent or share of produce to the landlord as the relationship between them and the landlord had come to an end when the land had been declared surplus. There is a basic flaw in this argument because the petitioners have not placed on record any evidence whatsoever to show that they were in possession of the land in dispute as tenants at the time of partition of the country and continued as such till it was declared surplus in 1962. The finding of the Revenue Courts is that the petitioners were tenants from Kharif 1980 (refer to para-3(i) of the order of the Financial Commissioner, Annexure P-4). Furthermore, the learned Commissioner vide order Annexure P-3 upheld the finding of the lower Revenue Courts and held as under : "Admittedly surplus area declared under the old Act but the same remained unutilised till date. The land did not vest in the State and the same remained under occupation of the petitioners as tenants and relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was confirmed by Civil Court. Therefore, there is no denial of that relationship. It is also an admitted fact that no share of produce was ever paid to the respondents-landowners. Since relationship. The land did not vest in the State and the same remained under occupation of the petitioners as tenants and relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was confirmed by Civil Court. Therefore, there is no denial of that relationship. It is also an admitted fact that no share of produce was ever paid to the respondents-landowners. Since relationship. of landlord and tenant between the parties was proved and non-payment of rent without sufficient cause was established, there was nothing wrong on the part of the learned A. C. Ist Grade to have passed the ejectment order against the petitioners as the respondents have right to recover share of produce from the land till the same finally vested in the State. Had the petitioners been resettled as tenants, then they should have been not liable to pay rent to the landlord and also have got the protection under the law." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has miserably failed to controvert these findings, The argument that the relationship between the petitioners and the respondents did not exist is not tenable as the petitioners apparently came into possession as tenants long after the surplus case had been decided. Moreover, the petitioners have not produced any order by which the surplus land may have been allotted to them. They have not placed on record any revenue record establishing their tenancy. Four Courts have unanimously found against the petitioners and that finding cannot be reversed on the basis of the pleadings of the petitioners and in the absence of concrete documentary evidence. 6 In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.