IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987
Date of Decision : July 07, 2008
Bhundu Ram
.....Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Parvesh Saini, Advocate
Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The defendant is before this Court in a second appeal filed
under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act against the judgment dated
23.4.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby his
appeal against the judgment dated 11.3.1986 passed by Senior Sub
Judge, Bhiwani, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, was
dismissed.
In his suit, the plaintiff/respondent pleaded that he was
owner of the land measuring 75 kanals 10 marlas and the
defendant/appellant was in unauthorised possession of the same.
R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -2-
Earlier to the plaintiff, one Man Kauri was the owner of the suit
property. She leased out the suit property to the defendant for a period
of one year, i.e. from Kharif 1981 to Rabi 1982. Vide decree dated
15.5.1982 passed against Man Kauri, the plaintiff was declared owner
of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the lease of the
defendant was never extended. The defendant filed a suit for permanent
injunction against Man Kauri and the plaintiff and had obtained
temporary injunction and on its basis he continued to be in possession
without any authority. The land was given on lease to the defendant by
Man Kauri at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre. Since the defendant had no
right to remain in possession, accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for a
decree for possession and mesne profits.
While opposing the suit, the defendant claimed that Man
Kauri had agreed that he could continue cultivating the suit land at the
rate of Rs. 500/- per acre and, therefore, he was continuing in
possession of the suit land as a lessee. The change of ownership from
Man Kauri to the plaintiff would not change the status of the defendant
and therefore, he was not in unauthorised possession of the suit land.
He also stated that he was ready to pay Chakota money at the rate of
Rs. 500/- per acre but the same was not accepted by Man Kauri and the
plaintiff.
On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed
R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -3-
the following issues :-
1. Whether the defendant is tenant over the
land under the plaintiff ? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claim
for use and occupation of the property in
dispute by the defendant ? If so to what
amount ? OPP.
3. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to
try this suit ? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is beyond limitation? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and
mis-joinder of parties ? OPD.
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the
present form ? OPD.
7. Whether the suit is bad for want of
notice? OPD.
8. Whether the less court fee has been affixed
on the plaint ? OPD.
9. Whether the plaintiff has not come to
the court with clean hands and whether
he is entitled to special costs ? If so,
how much ? OPD.
10. Relief.
After going through the evidence led by the parties, the
R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -4-trial Court, vide judgment dated 11.3.1986, held that the defendant
failed to prove that he was a tenant over the suit land under the
plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit for possession was decreed and the
plaintiff was also granted decree for mesne profits amounting to Rs.
4,500/- for the period from Kharif 1982 to Rabi 1983 with costs and
future interest. The findings arrived at by the trial Court were upheld by
Additional District Judge-II, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 23.4.1987 in
the appeal filed by the defendant.
It is the case of the defendant-appellant himself that he had
taken the suit land on lease from Man Kauri for a period of one year
only. This lease came to an end with the crop of Rabi 1982. Therefore,
the possession of the defendant-appellant over the suit property became
unauthorised. He ceased to be the tenant.
Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that even if
the period of lease had expired and the defendant continued to remain
in possession of the suit land, his status continued to be that of the
tenant and, therefore, he could not be ejected except in accordance with
law. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant referred to
Section 2(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953,
wherein ‘tenant’ has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy
Act, 1887 and includes a sub tenant and self cultivating lessee but did
not include the present holder. Under Section 4(5) of the Punjab
R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -5-
Tenancy Act, the ‘tenant’ is defined as under :-
“tenant” means a person who holds land under
another person, and is, or but for a special contract
would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other
person; but it does not include –
(a) an inferior landowner, or
(b) a mortgagee of the rights of a landowner, or
(c) a person to whom a holding has been
transferred, or an estate or holding has been
let in farm, under the Punjab Land Revenue
Act, 1887, for the recovery of an arrear of
land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such
an arrear, or
(d) a person who takes from the Government a
lease of unoccupied land for the purpose of
subletting it.”
Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to
Rameshwar v. Shri Sheo Chand and others, 1981 PLJ 362 and Ram
Lal v. Darshan Lal and others, 2008(1) PLR 361, wherein it was held
that on the expiry of period of tenancy for fixed period, the tenant
continues to remain a tenant and the tenancy could be terminated only
when order of ejectment is passed against tenant on any of the grounds
mentioned in Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.
Therefore, the best course for the landlord was to seek ejectment of the
R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -6-
defendant-appellant by moving an application under Section 14 of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and not by way of a suit for
possession.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
evidence led by the defendant was not in accordance with the pleadings
as set out in the written statement. In para 3 of his written statement,
the defendant took up the plea that after the expiry of the lease period
Man Kauri had agreed to allow the defendant to continue in possession
of the property as tenant Gair Maurusi, therefore, it amounted to
creation of a new tenancy after the expiry of the lease deed. This plea
taken up by the defendant was not supported by any documentary or
oral evidence. Therefore, any evidence, which was led beyond the
pleadings of the parties could not be looked into. Reference in this
regard may be made to Vinod Kumar v. Jagminder Das and another,
1970 PLJ 362 and Sain Dass v. Lachhman Das alias Lachhu Ram
etc., 1981 CLJ (Civil) 129. Even otherwise protection under the Act is
granted to a tenant for the period for which the tenancy subsisted and if
the tenancy was for a fixed period and it had expired, then in that
situation Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act did not
come to the aid of the tenant. Learned counsel for the respondent has
placed reliance on Mandir Jhoke Hari Har and others v. Shrimati Ajit
Kaur and others, 1977 PLJ 315, wherein it was held that a person
admitted to a tenancy did not continue to be a tenant for ever under the
R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -7-
provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act or the Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Act. He remained a tenant so long as the tenancy subsisted.
After the expiry of the fixed period of tenancy, Section 9 of the Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act would not come to his rescue. However,
that did not mean that the landlord was entitled to take possession of
the land forcibly on the expiry of the lease. He could evict him in
accordance with law.
Once the defendant took up the plea that Man Kauri had
leased out the suit property to him for a fixed period and the same had
expired but Man Kauri had allowed him to continue in possession as
tenant Gair Maurusi, he would be required to produce some material in
that regard. In that situation he could not be considered as a tenant but
considered as one continuing to be in possession with the consent of
the landlord. Instead of producing any document whereby his tenancy
was extended, the defendant has taken up the plea that once he was
inducted as a tenant, then for all times to come, he could be evicted by
the landlord only by seeking his ejectment on the grounds specified in
Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. This plea had
not been taken up by him in his written statement. Therefore, he cannot
be heard saying that he could not be ejected by the landlord/plaintiff
except by moving an application by him under Section 14 of the Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act.
R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -8-
Even if the defendant/appellant is allowed to argue that
once he was inducted as a tenant, may be for a fixed period of time, he
could be ejected from the suit property by the landlord by moving an
application under Section 14 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures
Act, the law is well settled that no such protection is available to a
person from eviction after the expiry of the tenancy. In the case of
Mandir Jhoke Hari Har (supra), it was specifically held that a person
admitted to a tenancy remained a tenant so long as the tenancy
subsisted. Once the period of tenancy expired, he ceased to be a tenant.
He could, thereafter, be ejected by the landlord although in that
situation, the landlord was to took recourse to law, i.e. to file a suit for
possession, as had been done in the present case.
In the case of Rameshwar (supra), a single Bench of this
Court relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal v.
State of Punjab and others, 1970 PLJ 812, wherein the contention of
the landlord that the tenancy had come to an end as soon as tenant
became liable for ejectment for non-payment of the arrears of rent was
rejected by observing that the tenancy after the enforcement of the Act
could be determined only in the conditions prescribed by Section 9 and
in the manner provided by Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land
Tenures and so long the Assistant Collector did not pass the order
ejecting the tenant, the right of the tenant was not extinguished and he
R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -9-
continued to remain a tenant. In the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) the
tenant was pleading for statutory right of purchase during the
ejectment proceedings launched against him by the land owner. The
ejectment was sought by the land owner on the ground of non-payment
of the rent. On the other hand, in the present case, the plaintiff had
sought ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the period of
tenancy had already expired and, therefore, defendant was in
unauthorised possession of the suit property.
In view of the above, no case is made out for interfering in
the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. None
of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant arises
for consideration. The appeal is without any merit and, is, accordingly,
dismissed. No costs.
( T.P.S. MANN )
July 07, 2008 JUDGE
satish
Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO