JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The two cases raise an identical issue viz. - is a tenant absolved of the liability to pay rent as soon an order for his eviction is passed even though he does not vacate the land for more than 20 years as he has not been resettled ? 2. The counsel are agreed that these can be disposed of by one order. Reference has been made to the facts as appearing on the record of C.W.P. No. 19672 of 1998, Sunder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others, 2001(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 483. These may be briefly noticed : 3. On July 26, 1973 the petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the land of respondent-Bharat Bhushan as he was found to be a small land owner. It was, however, observed that he would not be evicted till he was resettled on some other land. The petitioner did not apply for resettlement on any other land. However, he stopped paying Batai (rent) to the land owner. On September 13, 1982 the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner pointing out that nothing had been paid since January 1, 1980 for use and occupation of the land. When the due amount was not paid, the 5th respondent filed a petition under Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. The matter was examined by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ludhiana. After allowing all possible opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence, he finally decided the case on October 30, 1992. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P7. It was held that the present petitioner (respondent before the Assistant Collector) had failed to pay rent. Thus, he was ordered to be evicted. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector. He also filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence. The matter was examined at length. The Collector dismissed the appeal inter alia with the following findings :- 1. The petitioner had failed to make payment since Rabi 1981. 2. The petitioner has filed an application for grant of compensation on the ground that he had made improvement. This application had been dismissed vide order dated September 18, 1992. 3. The matter was examined at length. The Collector dismissed the appeal inter alia with the following findings :- 1. The petitioner had failed to make payment since Rabi 1981. 2. The petitioner has filed an application for grant of compensation on the ground that he had made improvement. This application had been dismissed vide order dated September 18, 1992. 3. The evidence of the petitioner had been closed by the authority vide order June 15, 1992 when he had "failed to produce evidence inspite of giving due opportunities to him." 4. The petitioner had "failed to pay the rent regularly without any sufficient cause....." Thus, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated June 29, 1998. A second revision petition before the Financial Commissioner also met with the same fate. Hence this writ petition. The petitioner prays that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, copies of which have been produced as annexures P7 to P10 be quashed. 4. Notice of the writ petition as issued to the respondents. Mr. M.C. Berry appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in both the petitions, Mr. V.S. Rana appears for respondent No. 5 in C.W.P. No. 19672 of 1998 and Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chaudhary, appears for respondent No. 5 in C.W.P. No. 472 of 1999. 5. We have heard Mr. G.D. Hans, learned counsel for the petitioners, in both these cases. He contends that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Thus, the petitioners in these two cases were not liable to pay any rent. He further contends that the authorities have failed to order payment of compensation for the improvements made by the petitioners. Finally, it has been contended that the impugned orders are vitiated as no reasons have been assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 6. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents. It has been submitted that the authorities have examined the evidence as adduced by the parties. Each argument has been duly considered. The orders are in conformity with law. Thus, no ground for interference is made out. 7. Admittedly, the 5th respondent is a small land-owner. The petitioners were liable to be ejected from the land. Orders against them had been admittedly passed in the year 1973. Each argument has been duly considered. The orders are in conformity with law. Thus, no ground for interference is made out. 7. Admittedly, the 5th respondent is a small land-owner. The petitioners were liable to be ejected from the land. Orders against them had been admittedly passed in the year 1973. Despite that, they had not vacated the land on the ground that alternative allotment had not been made. The respondent landowner was not a big landowner. That being so, by virtue of the provisions of Section 9A of the Act, the petitioners were entitled to "retain possession of ....... tenancy to the extent of 5 standard acres including any other land ..... until accommodated on a surplus area or otherwise." It was in view of this provision that the petitioners had continued to occupy the land belonging to respondent No. 5. However, this did not mean that they were not liable to pay the Batai/rent in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The liability to eject them for failure "to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause" is clearly imposed by Section 9 of the Act. The petitioners were not absolved from that liability merely by the passing of the order in the year 1973 for their eviction. The rights of a person who has been ordered to be evicted cannot be better than those of a person against whom no order has been passed. This being the position, the petitioner had to continue to pay. They did not. It has been found as a fact by the authorities that the petitioners had not made payment of rent for many years. In case of Sunder Singh, it has been found that the payment was not made from Rabi 1981 to the year 1987. Thus, they were liable to be evicted in view of the provision of Section 9 of the Act which provides that a tenant cannot be evicted unless he "fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause." The petitioners have failed to pay rent. No cause much less than a sufficient cause for failure has been shown. Thus, the respondent authorities were justified in ordering their eviction. 8. Thus, the question is answered in the negative. It is held that by the mere passing of the order of eviction, a tenant is not absolved of his liability to pay. 9. Mr. No cause much less than a sufficient cause for failure has been shown. Thus, the respondent authorities were justified in ordering their eviction. 8. Thus, the question is answered in the negative. It is held that by the mere passing of the order of eviction, a tenant is not absolved of his liability to pay. 9. Mr. Hans contends that the petitioners were entitled to the grant of compensation for the improvements which had been made on the land. In Sunder Singhs case, an application had been filed by the petitioners for the grant of compensation. As already noticed, the application for the grant of compensation was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide order dated September 18, 1992. That order has not been placed on record. No challenge to that order has been raised in the petition. Consequently, the grievance that the orders are vitiated cannot be sustained. 10. Mr. Hans has referred to the decision in Ajmer Singh v. Ch. Bakhtawar Singh & others, 1980 PLJ 132. This is an order passed by the Financial Commissioner. It constitutes no binding precedent. In fact, according to the practice in this Court, the decisions of the Financial Commissioner are not cited. In any event, the factual position in the case was totally different and it has no relevance to the present case. 11. The factual position even in the connected case being the same, the second ground cannot be sustained. 12. Lastly, it has been contended that no reasons have been given. Even this contention is wholly fallacious. In fact, detailed orders have been passed by all the authorities. The reasons assigned have been duly noticed above. 13. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in these petitions. Consequently, both the petition are dismissed. The 5th respondent shall be entitled to costs. The costs are assessed at Rs. 5,000/- in each case. Petitions dismissed.