Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 17.12.1992 passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, whereby the orders passed by Collector, Fazilka and Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, were set aside and the revision of respondent No. 2 - landlord was allowed, upholding the ex-parte ejectment order dated 22.11.1984 (Annexure P-1), petitioner - tenant has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-4. The facts of the case are hardly in dispute. Respondent - landlord moved an application in form N under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act'), for recovery of rent and in the alternative, for ejectment of the tenant. Since the tenant refused to accept the notice and did not put appearance before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Fazilka, despite proclamation conducted in the village, an ex parte order of ejectment was passed against him on 22.11.1984 (Annexure P-1). Appeal was filed by the tenant - petitioner before the Collector, Fazilka, who allowed the appeal vide order dated 18.10.1985 and remanded the matter back to Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Fazilka, for fresh decision. The order dated 18.10.1985 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Collector, Fazilka, was challenged by the respondent - landlord by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.08.1986 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, respondent - landlord filed three revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh, which were allowed vide impugned order dated 17.12.1992 (Annexure P-4). Hence, this writ petition at the instance of the tenant. 2. Notice of motion was issued and the pursuant thereto, written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the case was admitted for regular hearing. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter. 3. When this case was taken up for regular hearing on 03.10.2012, notice for actual date was issued to learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Office report dated 06.11.2012 shows that learned counsel for respondent No. 2 was informed vide letter No. 1398 dated 08.10.2012. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court on 09.11.2012 and sought time for filing an appropriate application, if required, for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No. 2. Office report dated 06.11.2012 shows that learned counsel for respondent No. 2 was informed vide letter No. 1398 dated 08.10.2012. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court on 09.11.2012 and sought time for filing an appropriate application, if required, for bringing on record the legal representatives of respondent No. 2. On his request, case was adjourned to 12.12.2012. He again sought time on 12.12.2012 and the case was adjourned to 22.01.2013. Thereafter, nobody appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, on any date of hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not duly served before passing the ejectment order dated 22.11.1984 (Annexure P-1). He further submits that the rent amount was only ` 999.99/- and the petitioner was in possession of 18 kanals 10 marlas. Had he come to know about the ejectment proceedings against him, he would certainly have contested the same. He next contended that since his other co-tenants were not interested, nobody was pursuing this litigation. It is only the petitioner, who filed the appeal against the ex parte ejectment order. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned order passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh, by allowing the present writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that since the petitioner has refused to accept the notice and thereafter proclamation was also conducted in the village, the writ petition was misconceived and liable to be set aside. He further submits that the refusal would amount to good service and if the petitioner has chosen not to appear before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Fazilka, he was not entitled to file any appeal against the ejectment order. He prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 7. It is undisputed fact on record that the ejectment order dated 22.11.1984 (Annexure P-1) was ex-parte. It does not appeal to reason that the tenant who was in actual possession and was cultivating the land in question, would not come forward to defend his possession, in case he had been duly served. 7. It is undisputed fact on record that the ejectment order dated 22.11.1984 (Annexure P-1) was ex-parte. It does not appeal to reason that the tenant who was in actual possession and was cultivating the land in question, would not come forward to defend his possession, in case he had been duly served. In the normal circumstances, no tenant would take the risk of ejectment without even contesting the ejectment proceedings, initiated against him for non-payment of rent. 8. Further, it is the settled proposition of law that every endeavour should be made to decide the list on merits. Although the contention raised by learned counsel for the State that refusal would amount to good service, is not without force, yet owing to the peculiar facts situation of the present case, this Court feels that the petitioner - tenant could not get sufficient opportunity to defend his possession. It is not expected that even at the time of proclamation, the tenant might be available in the village. A person who was earning his livelihood from the land under his tenancy, would always try his level best to protect his tenancy. Having said that, this Court feels safe to conclude that the ex parte ejectment order passed against the petitioner - tenant was not sustainable in law. 9. The appeal filed by the petitioner - tenant was rightly allowed by the Collector, Fazilka vide order dated 18.10.1985 and the appeal of respondent - landlord was dismissed by Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. However, the Financial Commissioner though was having limited jurisdiction while deciding the revision petition, fell in the serious error of law setting aside both the orders of Collector as well as of Commissioner by passing the impugned order (Annexure P-4). In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained. 10. No other argument was raised. 11. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is hereby ordered to be set aside. 12. 10. No other argument was raised. 11. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is hereby ordered to be set aside. 12. The matter is remanded back to the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Fazilka to decide afresh the application under form N read with Section 14A(ii) of the Act, by passing an appropriate order in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties. It is further directed that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Fazilka shall make an endeavour to decide the case on merits at an early date, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Resultantly, with the observations made and directions issued hereinabove, the present writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.