Shyam Lal Vs Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4245 OF 2012

Shyam Lal …..Appellant

versus

Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass …..Respondent

JUDGMENT

M. Y. EQBAL, J.

This appeal by special leave is directed against the

judgment dated 28.6.2010 of the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana whereby the second appeal filed by the appellant-

plaintiff was dismissed with costs throughout.

2. The litigation between the parties commenced on the

filing of the suit by the plaintiff-appellant for permanent

1

Page 2

injunction against the respondent-defendant claiming to

have been in possession of the suit property for 27-28 years

as Gair Marusi and alleging that the respondent was

threatening to dispossess him. The plaintiff claimed himself

to be in possession over the agricultural land measuring 122

kanals 2 marlas situated in village Chhainsa, Tehsil

Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad having tube-well, electricity

connection and his house in Killa No.26 in which he is

allegedly residing for the last 27-28 years continuously and

also having another Engine Tubewell Bore in killa no.26(1-2).

It is the case of the plaintiff that earlier Ram Dass Chela

Garib Das was the owner of the aforesaid land, which is now

recorded in the ownership of the defendant-respondent vide

Rapat No.508 dated 8.8.2003.

3. The case of the respondent on the other hand is that

the suit property was leased to the appellant-plaintiff by its

original owner Ram Dass Chela with effect from 12.7.1986 to

2

Page 3

June, 1994 and then again from 29.5.1996 till 28.5.2005 for

a consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. The respondent had

purchased the suit property on 8.8.2000. The respondent-

defendant pleaded that after expiry of the lease on

28.5.2005 the suit property was to revert back to the

defendant, but the plaintiff illegally and unlawfully wanted to

grab the suit land and as such the respondent also filed a

counter-claim in the said suit seeking a decree for

mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to handover

vacant peaceful possession of the land to the defendant with

damages at the rate of Rs.17,800/- per annum for

unauthorized occupation of the suit land. Contesting this

counter claim, plaintiff replied that after the expiry of lease,

plaintiff has become statutory tenant and his tenancy is

protected by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land

Tenure Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “1953 Act”).

It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is liable to pay fixed rent

of Rs.3000/- per annum and not the amount which has been

claimed by the defendant as damages.

3

Page 4

4. The trial court, after considering the pleadings and

evidence led before it, dismissed the suit of the appellant

but allowed the counter-claim holding that the plaintiff was

not a Gair marusi but a tenant over the suit property whose

tenancy had expired on 28.5.2005 and was a trespasser

thereafter. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the

plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed

by the District Court upholding the findings of the trial court.

The plaintiff-appellant then moved the High Court by way of

second appeal contending that he was a tenant under

section 4(5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Section

2(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and

therefore, could be evicted only on the grounds mentioned

in Section 17 of the 1953 Act. The appellant also contended

that the lease deed produced by the respondent was not

admissible in evidence as it was not registered.

4

Page 5

5. Dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff with costs, learned

Single Judge of the High Court held that the appellant would

not be a tenant after the expiry of the lease and would also

not be entitled to protection under Section 9 of the 1953 Act

as the respondent landlord had made his intention of not

extending the lease by filing a counter-claim against the

petitioner seeking possession. Section 9 of the 1953 Act

protects subsistent tenancy and not a trespasser in

possession after the expiry of the lease. Learned Single

Judge further held that though an unregistered lease deed

was not admissible in evidence, however as the lease deed

herein was meant for agricultural purposes, it was exempt

from registration under Section 117 of the Transfer of

Property Act. Hence, the present appeal by special leave by

the plaintiff under Article 136 of the Constitution.

6. We have heard Mr. Parveen H. Parekh, learned senior

counsel appearing for appellant and Mr. Manoj Swarup,

5

Page 6

learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused

the impugned judgment and all the papers placed before us.

The question that arises for consideration is as to whether

the plaintiff-appellant became a trespasser after expiry of

the lease period or continued to be a tenant having

protection for eviction under the tenancy laws.

7. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellant, referred relevant provisions of the Punjab

Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and submitted that a

tenant in possession of agricultural land cannot be held to be

a trespasser only because of expiry of the period for which

he was put in possession as a tenant. According to the

learned senior counsel, even after the expiry of the lease or

contract, he will continue as the statutory tenant and not as

the trespasser. Learned senior counsel put reliance on the

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal vs.

State of Punjab & ors., (1971) 1 SCC 34, V. Dhanapal

Chettiar vs. Yesodai Ammal, (1979) 4 SCC 214, and on

6

Page 7

the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Ram Lal

vs. Darshan Lal & ors., (2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427.

8. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondent,

in support of his contention said that after the expiry of lease

the lessee became a trespasser, relied upon decisions of this

Court in R.V. Bhupal Prasad vs. State of A.P. & Ors.,

(1995) 5 SCC 698, and the decisions of the Punjab and

Haryana High Court in the cases of Mandir Jhoke Hari Har

& ors. vs. Ajit Kaur & ors., 1977 PLJ 315 and Rameshwar

vs. Sheo Chand & ors., 1981 PLJ 362.

9. To decide rival claims of the parties, we think it

appropriate to reproduce here relevant provisions of the law.

10. In order to provide for the security of land tenure and

incidental matters, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,

1953 was enacted. However, such provisions of land

7

Page 8

security Act which are inconsistent with the newly enacted

provisions of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1972

has been repealed. The provisions of 1953 Act still holds the

field in many matters with regard to eviction and protection

of tenants in the manner not provided in the Act. Section

2(6) of the Act defines the word ‘Tenant’ as under:-

“Tenant” has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1998), and includes a sub- tenant, and self-cultivating lessee, but shall not include a present holder, as defined in section 2 of the resettlement Act.”

11. Section 4(5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (in short,

“1887 Act”) defines the word ‘tenant’ as under:-

“4. Definitions- In this Act, unless there in something repugnant in the subject or context,-

xxxx

(5) “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 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 (XVII of 1887), for the recovery of an arrear of land

8

Page 9

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.”

12. Section 2(8) of the 1887 Act defines the word “tenancy”

as a parcel of land held by a tenant of a landlord under one

lease or one set of conditions. Section 40 of the said Act

provides the grounds under which the tenant, who is in

occupation for a fixed term, can be ejected. Section 40

reads as under:

“40. Grounds of ejectment of tenant for a fixed term—

A tenant not having a right of occupancy but holding for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order of competent authority, shall be liable to be ejected from his tenancy at the expiration of that term, and, on any of the following grounds, before the expiration thereof namely :--

(a) that he has used the land comprised in the tenancy in a manner which renders it unfit for the purposes for which, he held it ;

(b) where rent is payable in kind, that he has without sufficient cause failed to cultivate that land in the manner, or to the extent customary in the locality in which the land is situate ;

9

Page 10

(c) on any ground which would justify ejectment under the contract decree or order.”

13. Reading the definition of tenant in both the Acts

together would show that a tenant includes a self cultivating

tenant and is liable to pay rent. Section 42 of the 1887 Act

prescribes the procedure for ejectment, which is quoted

hereinbelow:

“42. Restriction of Ejectment-A tenant shall not be ejected otherwise that in execution of a decree for ejectment, except in the following cases, namely:-

(a) when a decree for an arrear of rent in respect of his tenancy hasbeen passed against him and remains unsatisfied;

(b) when the tenant has not a right of occupancy and does not hold for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order of competent authority.”

14. Coming back to 1953 Act, which provides the

circumstances where the tenancy shall continue. Section 8

reads as under:-

“8. Continuity of tenancies –

10

Page 11

The continuity of tenancy shall not be affected by—

(a) the death of the landlord, or

(b) the death of tenant , except when the tenant leaves no male lineal descendants or mother or widow, and

(c) any change therein under the same land-owner, and for the purposes of sections 17 and 18 of this Act, such tenancy shall be the last area so held.”

15. Section 9 of the 1953 Act provides the liability of the

tenant to be ejected from the land held by him. Section 9

reads as under:-

“9. Liability of the tenant to be ejected.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no land-owner shall be competent to eject the tenant except when such tenant –

(i) is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or is a tenant of a small land-owner, {or}

(ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause, or

(iii) is in arrears of rent at the commencement of this Act, or

(iv) has failed, or fails, without sufficient cause, to cultivate the land comprised in his tenancy in the manner or to the extent customary in the locality in which the land is situate, or

(v) has used, or uses, the land comprised in his tenancy in a manner which has rendered, or

11

Page 12

renders it unfit for the purpose for which he holds it, or

(vi) has sublet the tenancy or a part thereof, provided that where only a part of the tenancy has been sublet, the tenant shall be liable to be ejected only from such part, or

(vii) refuses to execute a Qabuliyat or a Patta, in the form prescribed, in respect of his tenancy on being called upon to do so by an Assistant Collector on an application made to him for this purpose by the land owner

Explanation – For the purposes of clause (iii), a tenant shall be deemed to be in arrears of rent at the commencement of this Act, only if the payment of arrears is not made by the tenant within a period of two months from the date of notice of execution of decree or order, directing him to pay such arrears of rent.

(2)] Notwithstanding anything contained hereinbefore a tenant shall also be liable to be ejected from any area which he holds in any capacity whatever in excess of the permissible area;

Provided that the portion of the tenancy from which such tenant can be ejected shall be determined at his option if the area of his tenancy under the land-owner concerned is in excess of the area from which he can be ejected by the said land owner;

Provided further that if the tenant holds land of several land-owners and more than one land-owner seeks his ejectment, the right to ejectment shall be exercised in the order in which the applications have been made or suits have been filed by the land-owners concerned, and in case of simultaneous applications or suits the priority for ejectment shall commence serially from the smallest land-owner.

12

Page 13

Explanation.- Where a tenant holds land jointly with other tenants, only his share in the joint tenancy shall be taken into account in computing the area held by him.”

16. Section 10 makes provision for restoration of tenant

ejected after 15th August, 1947. The said provisions are as

under:-

“10. Restoration of tenant ejected after the 15th of August, 1947-

(1) Where a tenant has been ejected from any land in excess of the permissible area on grounds other than those mentioned in section 9, before the commencement of this Act, and after the 15th August, 1947, and such land is under self-cultivation, such tenant shall, [subject to the provisions of this Act be entitled to be restored to his tenancy in the manner prescribed on the same terms and conditions on which it was held by him at the time of his ejectment, on an application made to an Assistant Collector of the first Grade having jurisdiction, within one year from the date of intimation of reservation after the commencement of this Act, or, if no such reservation is made within the period specified in sub-section(3) of section 5, two years from the date of commencement of this Act;

Provided that if more tenants than one have been ejected from the same tenancy, the right of application for restoration shall be exercisable in serial order of priority commencing from the tenant first ejected and to the extent in each case of the permissible area, after taking into account any other tenancy or land which the ejected tenant holds at the time of his application for restoration.

13

Page 14

(2) On receipt of an application the Assistant Collector shall, after giving to the parties notice in writing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, determine the dispute summarily, and shall keep a memorandum of evidence and a gist of his final order with brief reasons therefor.

(3) When an application has been made, any proceedings in relation to the same matter pending in any other court or before any other authority shall be stayed on receipt of information by that court or authority from such assistant collector of the fact of having received the application, and all such proceedings in a court or before any authority shall lapse when the dispute has been determined by the Assistant Collector acting under this Act.

(4) A land-owner or any other person in actual possession of land at the time of restoration shall be entitled to such compensation as may be determined by the Assistant Collector, from the tenant intended to be restored for any loss suffered in consideration of anything done prior to the date of his first receiving information of the application.

Provided that no ejected tenant shall be restored to his tenancy as provided hereinbefore unless he has paid compensation as determined by the Assistant Collector to the land-owner or other person, if any as the case may be.”

17. Section 14-A provides for ejectment and recovery of

arrears of rent which reads as under :-

14

Page 15

“14-A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, and subject to the provisions of section 9-A.-

(i) a land owner desiring to eject a tenant under this Act shall apply in writing to the Assistant Collector First Grade having jurisdiction, who shall thereafter proceed as provided for in sub-section (2) of sub-section 10 of this Act, and the provisions of sub-section (3) of the said section shall also apply in relation to such application, provided that the tenants rights to compensation and acquisition of occupancy rights, if any under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 ( XVI of 1887), shall not be affected;

Provided that if the tenant makes payment of arrears of rent and interest, to be calculated by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, at eight per centum per annum on such arrears together with such costs of the application, if any, as may be allowed by Assistant Collector, First Grade, either on the day of first hearing or within fifteen days from the date of such hearing, he shall not be ejected

(ii) a land-owner desiring to recover arrears of rent from a tenant shall apply in writing to the Assistant Collector Second Grade, having jurisdiction, who shall thereupon send a notice in the form prescribed to the tenant either to deposit the rent or value thereof , if payable in kind or give proof of having paid it or of the fact that he is not liable to pay the whole or part of the rent or of the fact of the landlords refusal to receive the same or to give a receipt, within the period specified in the notice. Where, after summary determination, as provided for in sub- section (2) of Section 10 of this Act, the Assistant Collector finds that the tenant has not paid or deposited the rent he shall eject the tenant summarily and put the landowner in possession of the land concerned;

(iii) (a) if a landlord refuses to accept rent from his tenant

or demands rent in excess of what he is entitled to under this Act, or refuses to give a receipt, the tenant may in writing inform the Assistant Collector second Grade, having jurisdiction of the fact; (b) on receiving such application, the Assistant Collector shall by a written notice require the landlord to

15

Page 16

accept the rent payable in accordance with this Act, or to give a receipt, as the case maybe , or both ,within 60 days of the receipt of the notice “

18. Perusal of Section 18 of 1953 Act would show that the

tenant have also been given right to purchase the land if he

is in continuous possession of the land for a minimum period

of six years. This Section even gives a right to a tenant, to

purchase land, who was ejected from his tenancy after 14 th

August, 1947 and who was in continuous possession of the

land for a period of six years.

19. Considering the provisions of Sections 9, 14, 14A and

18 together, we have no doubt in our mind that a tenant of

an agricultural land is liable to be evicted only in the manner

provided under the Act notwithstanding any contract on the

basis of which tenant occupied possession of the land for the

purpose of cultivation. We are also of the view that action

for eviction of a tenant can be taken before a Revenue

16

Page 17

Authority to whom power and jurisdiction has been conferred

by the said Act.

20. The defendant-respondent’s own case in the written

statement is that the appellant-tenant came in possession of

the land in 1986 and remained in continuous possession till

2005. Indisputably, the appellant’s name was recorded in

Jamabandies, which is evident from the Exhibit P-1 and P-2.

Khasra Girdwari entries are also in the name of appellant.

The trial court without appreciating the evidence came to

the following conclusion that the appellant became a

trespasser. The court held:-

“The jamabandies produced by both the parties are self contradictory. The jamabandies produced by the plaintiff name of the plaintiff is entitled in the gair marusi record and chakota as the name is entered at Rs.3,000/- per annum and Ram Dass Chela Garib Dass has given the aforesaid land to Shyam lal on lease from 29.5.1956 to 28.5.2005 for Rs. 1,60,000/-. Therefore, it proves that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is termed to be a trespasser and plaintiff has not having any right to remain over the suit property as tenant. It is also pointed out that if the plaintiff is a gair marusi tenant. He has to prove on file the payment made by him to the land owner but there is nothing on record to prove this fact that the plaintiff has paid any amount to the defendant/land owners.”

17

Page 18

21. The Appellate Court, although took notice of the entries

in the revenue record wherein plaintiff-appellant was

recorded as Gair Marusi, held that those entries are without

any basis and liable to be ignored. The learned Appellate

Court further held that after the expiry of lease period in

2005 the appellant loses authorization to hold possession of

the land and his right to hold possession is not more than a

trespasser.

22. Similar provisions have been made in the Orissa

Tenancy Act, 1913. Section 3(23) is the definition of tenant

which means a person who holds land under another person,

and is, but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent

for that land to that person.

23. Sub-section 2 of Section 5 of the Orissa Act defines the

term “Raiyat”, which means primarily a person who has

acquired the right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating

18

Page 19

it by himself or by person of his family or by hired servants

and also includes successors-in-interest or person who have

acquired such right. Further, where a tenant of land has the

right to bring it under cultivation shall be deemed to have

acquired a right to hold it for the purpose of cultivation.

24. We find similar definition of tenant under the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955. Section 5(43) defines the word ‘tenant’

as under :-

“(43) “Tenant” shall mean the person by whom rent is, or, but for a contract, express or implied, would be, payable and except when the contrary intention appears, shall include –

(a) in the Abu area, a permanent tenat or protected tenant,

(b) In the Ajmer area, an ex-proprietory tenant or an occupancy tenant or a hereditary tenant or a non-occupancy tenant or a Bhooswami or Kashtkar,

(c) in the Sunel area, an ex-proprietory tenant or a pakka tenant or an ordinary tenant,

(d) a co-tenant, (e) a grove-holder, (f) a village servant (ff) a tenant holding from a landowner, (g) a tenant of Khudkasht, (h) a mortgages of tenancy rights, and

19

Page 20

(i) a sub-tenant but shall not include a grantee at a favourable rate of rent or an ijaradar or a thekadar or a trespasser”

25. Now we shall discuss the decisions relied upon by the

learned counsel on either side. In Dhanapal Chettiar’s

case (supra), the question that came for consideration

before the larger Bench of this Court was as to whether

under the Rent Control Act notice under Section 106 of the

Transfer of Property Act is necessary for the purpose of

proceeding against the tenant for his eviction on the grounds

mentioned in the Rent Control Legislation. This Court held

that in the case of eviction under the Rent Act, the tenancy

actually terminates on the passing of the order or decree for

eviction. Hence, determination of a lease in accordance with

the Transfer of Property Act is not necessary and a mere

surplusage because the landlord cannot get eviction of the

tenant even after such determination. The tenant continues

to be so even thereafter.

20

Page 21

26. Similarly the decision relied upon by the respondent in

Bhupal Prasad’s case (supra) is also have no application in

the present case inasmuch as it was a case under the Rent

Control Act. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid two

decisions of this Court deal with the status of the tenant

under the Rent Control Act after the expiry of fixed term

lease and the right of landlord to get eviction on certain

grounds. In the case of tenant holding agricultural land, the

tenancy and procedure of ejectment of tenant are governed

by relevant State Tenancy Laws, which are special Act and

such tenancy is not covered by Transfer of Property Act.

27. In the case of Sukhdev Singh (D) thr. Lrs. & ors. vs.

Court on consideration of the provisions of the Punjab

Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 was of the opinion that

after the expiry of the fixed term tenancy in respect of

21

Page 22

agricultural land, the provision of 1953 Act will have no

application. The Court observed:-

“In our view, the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel does not merit acceptance. Admittedly, the petitioners were granted lease of the suit land in 1955 for a period of 20 years and the term of their lease ended in 1975. Section 9 of the 1953 Act is attracted only when a tenant is sought to be evicted. The said section is not applicable to a case where the tenancy gets terminated by efflux of time and the person occupying the lease premises no longer remains tenant. There is no provision in the 1953 Act similar to those contained in the Urban Rent Control Legislations under which a tenant becomes statutory tenant after expiry of the contractual tenure of the tenancy.”

28. In the case of Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab, (1971)

1 SCC 34, considering the provisions of Sections 9, 14A and

Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953

and discussing the right of the tenant to purchase the land,

this Court held:

“6. It was urged that since Section 18 commences with a non-obstante clause viz. “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract”, if a proceeding in ejectment is lodged against the tenant which ulitmately is allowed, the tenant cannot make a claim during the pendency of the proceeding to purchase the land. To hold

22

Page 23

otherwise, it was urged, would enable a tenant in default to defeat the claim in a suit in ejectment by commencing a proceeding for purchasing the land. We do not think that the expression “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract” whittles down the right of the tenant at the date when he makes a claim to purchase the land merely because the tenancy is liable to be terminated in a proceeding then pending for an order in ejectment under Section 14-A, at the instance of the land-owner. Under the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely because a proceeding in ejectment is instituted. The tenancy is determined only in the conditions prescribed by Section 9 and in the manner provided by Section 14- A. If a tenant is in default in payment of rent the land-owner desiring to recover rent due by the tenant may apply in writing to the Assistant Collector who shall thereupon send a notice to the tenant to deposit the rent due or give proof of having paid it. If the tenant fails to pay the rent or give proof of payment, the Assistant Collector shall, after a summary inquiry, if he is of the view that the tenant has not paid or deposited the rent, eject the tenant summarily and put the land-owner in possession of the land concerned. But so long as the Assistant Collector has not passed the order ejecting the tenant the right of the tenant is not extinguished: he continues to remain a tenant and being a tenant he is entitled to exercise his right to purchase the land.”

29. In Sanwat Singh vs. Zail Singh, (1997) 9 SCC 468,

while discussing tenant’s right under 1953 Act in a case

where the land in possession of the tenant is sold by the

owner of the land, this Court held that a tenant as defined

23

Page 24

under Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 means a person who holds

the land under another person and is, but for a special

contract, would be, liable to pay rent and he is liable to be

evicted only under certain conditions as provided under

Section 9 of the said Act. Referring Section 9 of the said Act,

this Court held:

“5. In other words, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, including the law relating to prescription, a tenant in possession of the demised property by the vendor is not liable to ejectment except in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It is not his case that he has contravened any of the provisions and is liable to be ejected. Even otherwise, if his case is that he has contravened any of the provisions, unless appropriate action in accordance with law is taken and order passed, he is entitled to resist unlawful interference with the possession. Thereby, the decree granted by the appellate court and confirmed by the High Court is not correct in law.”

30. In Tulsi vs. Paro, (1997) 2 SCC 706, this Court after

considering provisions of Section 105 of the Transfer of

Property Act observed:

24

Page 25

“It is not necessary that lease should always be reduced to writing. What is necessary is for transfer of a right of enjoyment of the property made for a certain time, expressed or implied and for consideration of the price, paid or promised, the transferee must have been put in possession of the demised property. It is also necessary that an agreement can be entered into for rendering periodical service and for consideration thereof and on transfer of the land to the transferee and acceptance thereof, either orally or in writing, the lease comes into existence. It is seen that when the name of the appellant has successively found place in the records for the period from 1951-52 to 1971- 72 as “tenant at will”, the necessary conclusion is that he is a tenant at will liable to eviction according to law. The theory that he is a licensee, as has been accepted by the High Court and the trial court, is untenable. A licensee has no right in the property, not to speak of any right to the exclusive possession of the property and animus of possession always remains with the licensor; the licensee gets the possession only with the consent of the licensor and is liable to vacate when so asked. In this case, since the appellant remained in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property for over 20 years, it is unthinkable to conclude that they are only licensee. The High Court and the trial court, therefore, were clearly in error in reaching the conclusion that the appellant is only a licensee. On the other hand, from the facts, it is clear that the appellant is a tenant and he will be liable for ejectment only in accordance with law. If he is otherwise entitled to tenancy right of the property, the right can be had in accordance with law and it is open to him to work out the same in accordance with law.”

31. In the case of Ram Lal vs. Darshan Lal and ors.,

(2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427, a Bench of Punjab and Haryana

25

Page 26

High Court was considering the right of the tenant conferred

by Section 9 of the 1953 Act. In that case, the tenant was in

possession of the agricultural land on the basis of the lease

for 20 years. Upon expiry of the said lease period, a suit for

possession was filed contending that after expiry of the lease

the tenant’s possession became illegal and unauthorized.

Hence, he is liable to be evicted by obtaining a decree from

civil court. Rejecting the contention of the landlord, the High

Court held that in terms of provisions contained in 1953 Act,

a tenant shall be evicted only on the grounds mentioned in

Section 9 of the said Act. The Court observed

“6. In Shri Raja Durga Singh Versus Tholu and others, AIR 1963 SC-361, the Court found that suit for possession and mesne profits against the defendant who claims to be occupancy tenant and status as tenant is not barred from the cognizance of the Civil Court. However, in the present case, it is the admitted fact that defendant No.1 was inducted as tenant for a period of 20 years. Therefore, the question which requires to be examined is whether after the expiry of the period of lease, the tenant can be evicted by filing a Civil Suit for possession. The said question was not the question raised or decided in the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, even the said judgment provides little assistance to the appellant.

26

Page 27

7. In the present case, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 protects the tenancy of agricultural land in favour of the tenant. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 specifies the grounds of eviction which are available to the landlord. The eviction of a tenant after the expiry of lease is not a ground mentioned therein. Therefore, after the expiry of lease, the tenant would be a statutory tenant and such tenant can be evicted only in terms of one or the other grounds of eviction contemplated under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act, 1953. Such eviction proceedings have to be initiated before the competent Revenue Court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant a decree for possession.”

32. Taking into consideration the various tenancy laws

applicable in the State of Punjab and the law discussed by

this Court and the High Court, in our considered opinion the

trial court, the appellate court and the High Court have

committed error of law in holding that a tenant of

agricultural holding becomes a trespasser after the expiry of

period of tenancy. The High Court and the lower courts have

failed to consider that the agricultural tenancy are governed

by the State Tenancy Laws which are special Acts for the

purpose of regulating the tenancy and protecting the tenants

27

Page 28

from eviction without following the procedure provided in

those State Laws. The procedure for eviction of tenant in

occupation of building by approaching the civil court under

Rent Control Act will not be applicable for evicting the

tenants holding agricultural land. We are further of the view

that it is the Revenue Court specially empowered to take

action for eviction of tenant in the manner provided under

the Act notwithstanding any contract on the basis of which

the tenant occupied possession of the agricultural land for

the purpose of cultivation.

33. Be that as it may, in Sukhdev Singh’s case (supra) a

Bench of this Court on consideration of the provisions of

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was of the opinion

that after the expiry of fixed term tenancy in respect of

agricultural land, the tenancy gets terminated by efflux of

time and person occupying the lease premises no longer

remains tenant. With due respect, we are not in agreement

28

Page 29

with the view taken by this Court in Sukhdev Singh’s case

(supra).

34. In the aforesaid circumstances, to maintain judicial

discipline, the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench

for laying down a correct law.

35. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the record

before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for placing the

matter before a larger Bench.

…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………….J. (Shiva Kirti Singh)

New Delhi February 27, 2015

29

SHYAM LAL Vs DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

SHYAM LAL Vs DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS