ORDER 1. In these appeals, the validity and correctness of the order made by the High Court dismissing the writ petition is under challenge. The appellants made an application on 25-3-1986 in Form L under Section 14-A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short "the Act") and sought for eviction of Respondents 3, 5 and 6 on the ground that these respondents had failed to pay rent in respect of the land in question. The Revenue Officer­cum-Assistant Collector allowed the application by his order dated 15-3­1991. The respondents filed appeal against the said order made by the Revenue Officer, but, the appeal also was dismissed. Thereafter, the said respondents filed revision petition before the Commissioner. On the recommendation of the Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner allowed the revision petition and dismissed the application made by the appellants. Aggrieved by the order of the Financial Commissioner, the appellants approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, which writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the order made by the Financial Commissioner as well as the• High Court are unsustainable; they have wrongly held that Respondents 3, 5 and 6 were not tenants; admittedly, when these respondents had claimed to purchase the lands on the basis that they were tenants, merely because there was an agreement of sale, the respondents could not get protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act without showing that they continued to be in possession of the lands in different capacity after entering into the agreement of sale; in other words, their possession as tenants did not cease. Learned counsel added that the original authority and the appellate authority, on facts, arrived at a right conclusion; the Financial Commissioner as well as the High Court were not at all justified in reversing that finding of fact. 3. In opposition, the learned counsel for the contesting Respondents 3, 5 and 6 made submissions supporting the impugned order. Learned counsel added that the original authority and the appellate authority, on facts, arrived at a right conclusion; the Financial Commissioner as well as the High Court were not at all justified in reversing that finding of fact. 3. In opposition, the learned counsel for the contesting Respondents 3, 5 and 6 made submissions supporting the impugned order. In response to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the conduct of these respondents itself showed that they were tenants over the land because they had made an application for purchase of the lands as tenants, he pointed out that such an application was made in the year 1964, but, prior to the agreement of sale the case was decided much later in 1978. 4. The facts that are not in dispute are that Respondents 3, 5 and 6 were tenants over the lands in question earlier. The agreement of sale was entered into between the parties on 27-7-1976 and the application seeking eviction of the said respondents was made on 25-3-1986, that is, almost after 10 years. There is no evidence on record to show that any rent was collected from the respondents during the long period of 10 years. The Financial Commissioner, by a detailed order, having regard to the terms of agreement and othercircumstances, recorded a finding that the respondents were in possession of the lands in question on the basis of the agreement of sale and the appellants failed to establish that the respondents continued to be tenants and were not in possession of the lands in furtherance of the agreement of sale. The Financial Commissioner held that the appellants failed to establish that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In that view, the revision petition was allowed and the application filed by the appellants seeking eviction of the respondents was dismissed. The High Court, as is evident from the impugned order, has concurred with the finding of fact so recorded by the Financial Commissioner. Whether the possession of the respondents was that of the tenants or on the relevant date, their possession was on the basis of the agreement of sale, is a finding of fact based on the evidence and attending circumstances. Whether the possession of the respondents was that of the tenants or on the relevant date, their possession was on the basis of the agreement of sale, is a finding of fact based on the evidence and attending circumstances. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when a finding of fact is recorded by the Financial Commissioner on the relevant consideration based on evidence, the High Court was right in not interfering with the said findings of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. This being the position, we are of the view, that these are not fit cases to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Thus, finding no merit, these appeals are dismissed. 6.No costs. 7. However, this order does not prejudice or preclude the appellants from seeking appropriate remedy available in law for recovery of possession and for other reliefs, as the case may be.