Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
BHAJAN LAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
28/09/1970
BENCH:
[J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
ACT:
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 ss. 14A 18-
Applications for ejectment by landlord, and for purchase of
land by tenant-If tenant’s application can be ordered.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant instituted a proceeding in ejectment under s.
14A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 but
before orders were passed on the application, the tenant
initiated a proceeding under s. 18 exercising his right to
purchase the land. The two proceedings ended in orders
dismissing the ejection application and declaring the tenant
entitled to purchase the land. On the question whether the
tenant’s application could be granted.
HELD : Under s. 18 of the Act if a tenant had remained in
continuous occupation of the land for a minimum period of
six years he is entitled to purchase the land on payment of
the compensation determined. Under s. 14A, the landowner
may obtain possession of the land on the ground of non-
payment of rent by a proceeding filed before the Assistant
Collector. If the tenant, after notice, fails to pay the
rent or give proof of payment. the Assistant Collector shall
after a summary inquiry, eject the tenant and put the
landowner in possession. But so long as the Assistant
Collector has not passed the ejectment order, the tenant’s
right is not extinguished; he continues to be a tenant and
being a tenant is entitled to exercise his right of
purchase. [501 C-G]
In the present case, before the Assistant Collector passed
an order in ejectment, the tenant exercised his right to
purchase the land, and that right would not be defeated
merely because, on a subsequent date, an order of ejectment
was passed against him. He is entitled to purchase the land
on payment of the amount of compensation together with the
amount of rent due by him. [501 G-H; 502 E]
Har Sarup v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, (1965)
44 Lah. L.T. 157, approved.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1338 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated March 7, 1967
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 326
of 1967.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
B. R. L. Iyengar, R. L. Kohli and J. C. Talwar, for the
appellant.
S. C. Manchanda, M. L. Aggarwal and N. K. Aggarwal, for
respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. Bhajan Lal was the owner of land measuring 21
498
bighas 2 biswas and bearing Khasra Nos. 11/12, 18, 20 and 43
in village Sukhchen. Shadi was the tenant of the land for
agricultural use. Alleging that Shadi had failed to pay the
rent due by him for the period Kharif Season 1957 to Rabi
Season 1960, Bhajan Lal applied under S. 14-A of the Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, to the Assistant
Collector for an order in ejectment against Shadi. The
application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector and
that order was confirmed in appeal by the Collector. The
Financial Commissioner set aside the order and remanded the
case for a fresh decision by order dated January 8, 1962.
There was yet another proceeding regarding the same lands.
On February 20, 1961 Shadi applied to the Assistant
Collector to purchase the lands under S. 18 of the Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Assistant Collector
rejected the application. The Collector confirmed that
order. By order dated October 5, 1962, the Financial
Commissioner remanded the case for determining whether
Shadi was in occupation of the lands for six years before
the date of the petition.
The Assistant Collector held that Shadi could claim to pur-
chase the lands under s. 18 of the Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Act, 1953 on paying Rs. 8,409/- in ten equal instal-
ments to Bhajan Lal. The Assistant Collector held in the
proceeding for ejectment started by Bhajan Lal that the
tenant Shadi had without sufficient cause committed default
in paying rent and ordered that he be evicted. The two
orders were passed on April 30, 1964. Whereas in the
proceeding started by Bhajan Lal he held that Shadi was
liable to be evicted from the lands because he had without
sufficient cause committed default in paying rent, in the
proceeding filed by Shadi the Assistant Collector declared
that Shadi was entitled to purchase the lands from Bhajan
Lal. The two orders were challenged respectively by Shadi
and Bhajan Lal in revision applications filed before the
Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner set
aside the order in favour of Shadi and dismissed the
application filed by Shadi. In a revision application, the
Financial Commissioner set aside the order of ejectment
against Shadi and restored the order of the Collector
declaring him entitled to purchase the lands.
Against the order whereby Shadi was declared entitled to
purchase the lands, Bhajan Lal applied to the High Court of
Punjab for an order setting aside the order of the Financial
Commissioner. The High Court dismissed the petition in
limine. Bhajan Lal has appealed to this Court with special
Leave
Section 9(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,
1953 provides
499
.lm15
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, no landowner shall be competent to
eject a tenant except when such tenant-
(i) is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or is a
tenant of a small landowner; or
(ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause;
or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
(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 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 to
him for this purpose by the landowner.
Explanation.-For the purpose 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 the execution of decree or order, directing him to pay
such arrears of rent."
Section 14-A of the Act insofar as it is relevant provides
"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-
500
section (2) of, Section 10 of this Act, and the provisions
of sub-section (3) of the said section shall also apply in
relation to such application,
(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 landlord’s refusal to receive the same or to give a
receipt, within the period specified in the notice.
Section 18 of the Act, insofar as it is relevant provides
"(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any law, usage or contract, a tenant of a land-owner other
than a small land-owner-
(i) who has been in continuous occupation of the land
comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years,
or
(ii) who has been restored to his tenancy under the
provisions of this Act and whose periods of continuous
occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy immediately
before ejectment and immediately after restoration of his
tenancy together amounts to six years or more, or
(iii) *
shall be entitled to purchase from the land-owner the land
so held by him but not included in the reserved area of the
landowner, in the case of a’ tenant falling within clause
(i) or clause (ii) at any time, and in the case of a tenant
falling within clause (iii) within a period of one year from
the date of commencement of this Act
By virtue of S. 14-A the land-owner may obtain possession of
the land on the ground of non-payment of rent by a
proceeding
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
501
filed before the Assistant Collector, during the subsistence
of the tenancy. If the tenant has remained in continuous
occupation of the land for a minimum period of six years he
is entitled to purchase the land under S. 18 of the Act.
It was urged that since S. 18 commence 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 ultimately is
allowed, the tenant cannot make a claim during the pendency
of the proceeding to purchase the land. To hold 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
s. 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 s. 9 and
in the manner provided by s. 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.
Shadi was a tenant prior to the date of the institution by
Bhajan Lal of the proceeding in ejectment and he continued
to remain a tenant till an order was passed by the Assistant
Collector on April 30, 1964. But before that date Shadi had
exercised his right to purchase the land and that right to
purchase the land would not be defeated merely because on a
date subsequent thereto an order in ejectment was passed
against him. Shadi, had therefore, at the date when he
initiated proceeding under s. 18 right to purchase the land.
By the subsequent order in ejectment made against him the
statutory right of Shadi was not prejudicially affected.
-L436 Sup.CI/71
50 2
We agree with the observations of Mahajan, J., in Har Sarup
and Anr. v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab(1) at
p. 15 9 :
"But, at the time when section 18 application
was filed, no order for eviction had been
passed. Therefore, at that time, the
relationship of landlord and tenant did exist.
Mr. Daulta has not been able to point to me
any provision of law which would make the
eviction decree. operative from the date of
the eviction application. The mere fact that
the tenants had incurred the liability for
eviction by reason of non-payment of rent
would not put an end to the admitted relation-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
ship of landlord and tenant between the
parties. This liability only puts an end to
the aforesaid relationship when the eviction
decree is passed. The eviction decree was
passed long after the section 18 application.
Therefore, the present petition is liable to,
succeed only to have extent of section 18
application, that is, the tenants would be
entitled to purchase the land. "
But a slight modification needs to be made in the order. A
proceeding for recovery of rent was commenced against Shadi.
It is not clear whether the amount of compensation
determined by the Assistant Collector as payable by Shadi
for purchasing the land includes the rent in arrears. We
declare that Shadi will be entitled to purchase the land on
payment of the amount of compensation together with the
amount of rent due by him. The Assistant Collector will
pass appropriate order in that behalf and direct that
payment be made in appropriate instalments under s. 18 (4)
(a).
Subject to that modification, the appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs.
V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.
(1) (1965) 44 Lah. Law Times 157
50 3