make respondent No.9 as a direct tenant under him. In case these receipts are found to be on account of payment of rent, it is obviously that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 14A(i) of the Act. If otherwise, it is found that these were not the receipts indicating payment of rent or that respondent No.9 is not a direct tenant under the petitioner, the necessary consequences of ejectment would follow because in that event no rent would have been paid as is envisaged under Section 14A(i) of the Act. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in the part of direction given by the Commissioner, remanding the case back to Assistant Collector Ist Grade to determine this aspect. It is made clear that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, this time would only consider the aspect whether respondent No.9 is a direct tenant under the petitioner and whether the receipts which he had tendered, was for payment of any rent. Assistant Collector Ist Grade would not summon respondent Nos.6 to 8 and would not give them any chance to deposit any rent. In this background and the view that this Court has taken, the reference and reliance on a Full Bench decision reported as Gurmej Singh and others Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 1980 P.L.J. 603 need not be gone into.
