As per case facts, petitioners claimed tenancy via crop sharing. Landowners sought their ejectment under the 1953 Act for non-payment of rent. The Assistant Collector directed the petitioners to deposit ... a sum without interest, which they paid. The Collector dismissed the landowners' appeal. However, the Divisional Commissioner, in revision, allowed the ejectment, finding petitioners failed to pay rent regularly and the Assistant Collector's order was contrary to the statute by waiving interest and extending time. Petitioners appealed to the High Court against this eviction order. The question arose whether the Assistant Collector's direction for rent payment without interest and extended period was a correct application of the 1953 Act's proviso to save tenants from eviction, especially when tenants did not dispute the rent amount. Finally, the High Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the Divisional Commissioner's order. It held that the Assistant Collector had wrongly exercised powers under the Act's proviso, which is meant for genuine tenants, not those who fail to pay rent without sufficient cause or dispute the rent amount. The Writ Petition was dismissed.