JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - Varinder Nath, respondent No. 5 filed a petitioner under Section 9-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 against Kishna, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. He claimed that he was a smaller landowner. Thus, Kishan who owned more than 100 Kanals of land was liable to be evicted. This petition was allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated May 15, 1991. A copy of this order has been placed on record as Annexure P.1. Aggrieved by the order, Kishna filed an appeal before the Collector. Vide order dated May 12, 1992 a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P.2, the Collector dismissed the appeal. Kishan filed a revision. It was dismissed by the Commissioner on June 16, 1992. A copy of this order has been placed on record as Annexure P.3. The revision petition before the Financial Commissioner also met with the same fate. It was dismissed vide order dated May 20, 1998. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P.4. Aggrieved by the orders Annexures P.1 to P.4, the sons of Kishna have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They pray that the orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.1 to P.4, be quashed. 2. A written statement has been filed by respondent No. 5. The claim made by the petitioners has been controverted. 3. Ms. Kamalpreet, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Revenue Authorities erred in holding that Kishna was a tenant. In fact, he was a co-sharer with the respondent. Thus the view taken by the authorities cannot be accepted. She has referred to the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 to support the submission. On the other hand, Mr. Mani Ram, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 has submitted that no such plea was raised by Kishna in his reply to the application filed by Varinder Nath. He has further submitted that the petitioners having not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant before the Revenue Authorities, cannot now be permitted to claim ownership. 4. The petition for eviction, as filed by respondent No. 5 related to the land measuring 18 Kanals 1 Marla. It was allegedly comprised in rectangle No. 74 Killa Nos. 17, 18 and 19. 4. The petition for eviction, as filed by respondent No. 5 related to the land measuring 18 Kanals 1 Marla. It was allegedly comprised in rectangle No. 74 Killa Nos. 17, 18 and 19. The Jamabandi produced by the petitioners is not shown to be relating to this land. Still further the Revenue Authorities had recorded concurrent findings of fact that respondent No. 5 is a small landowner. It has also been found that Kishna, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners owned more than 100 Kanals of land. Thus, the claim of the respondent landowner for eviction of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners has been sustained in view of the provisions of Sections 9(1) and 9-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. No infirmity in the view taken by the Revenue Authorities has been pointed out. Thus, no ground for interference is made out. 5. We may also notice that the petitioners have placed on record a copy of the decree sheet passed in Civil Suit No. 416 of 1987, by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Sirsa as Annexure P.6 with the writ petition. However, counsel for the petitioners has very clearly stated before us that the petitioners are not parties and that they are not claiming any right under the decree. As against this, Mr. Mani Ram appearing for respondent No. 5 has submitted that Kishna the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had filed a civil suit against the respondent in which it was held that he was attendant on the land in dispute. Learned counsel has also produced before us a certified copy of the judgment dated January 5, 1993 delivered by Mr. R.D. Jaitain, Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa. It is taken on record as mark A. A perusal of this judgment shows that Kishna had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is "in actual and physical cultivation possession of land measuring 18 Kanals and 1 Marla, comprised in Rect. No. 74 Killa Nos. 17(2-1), 18(8-0), 19(8-0) situated at village Musahabwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa, as a tenant on payment of one-third share of batai and that the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1987 passed by Shri N.C. Nahata, Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa, in Civil Suit No. 416 of 1987 titled as Arjan Dass and others v. Virender Nath, are wrong and illegal....". 17(2-1), 18(8-0), 19(8-0) situated at village Musahabwala, Tehsil and District Sirsa, as a tenant on payment of one-third share of batai and that the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1987 passed by Shri N.C. Nahata, Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa, in Civil Suit No. 416 of 1987 titled as Arjan Dass and others v. Virender Nath, are wrong and illegal....". This suit was dismissed by the Court vide its judgments dated January 5, 1993. It is thus, clear that Kishna had himself claimed to be a tenant and not a co-sharer. 6. In view of the above, we find that the findings recorded by the Revenue Authorities are correct. These call for no interference. 7. We may also observed that the petitioners have more than 100 Kanals of land in the same village in which the land in dispute is situated. They also own land in Punjab. It is, thus, clear that their total holding in Haryana is more than five standard acres. Besides that they have land in Punjab also. Thus, we find that the petitioners are not the poor tenants who have no other source of livelihood. There is no equity in their favour which may persuade us to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Revenue Authorities. 8. No other point had been raised. 9. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition. It is consequently dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.