Non-payment of rent negates tenancy despite revenue entries recording possession as a non-occupancy tenant.

The plaintiff (Khoob Ram) filed a suit for declaration of title and joint possession of land inherited from his predecessor, Achhru, who acquired it through the share of Ghogli

The dispute arose after the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Karsog, ordered in 1994 that Defendant No. 1 (Puran Chand) be recorded as a non-occupancy tenant in the revenue records based on a field report of long-term possession

The defendant asserted he was a tenant who paid rent and eventually acquired proprietary rights under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant was never inducted as a tenant and never paid rent

The legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 appealed to the High Court

Section 37(3) and Section 46 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, which allow a person aggrieved by revenue entries to institute a suit for declaration in a Civil Court

Full Bench decision in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram (1991), which established that Civil Court jurisdiction is not barred when challenging the correctness of entries made by Revenue Officers under the Land Revenue Act

A relationship of landlord and tenant requires an agreement and the payment of rent, as held in Telu Ram v. Hari Kumar (1975) and Bhagat Ram v. Brahma Nand (2010), noting that a "non-occupancy" entry in the cultivation column is insufficient without a corresponding entry in the rent column

The Court reasoned that the Assistant Collector’s 1994 order was passed under the H.P. Land Revenue Act merely to reflect possession, not to adjudicate tenancy under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act; therefore, the Civil Court retained jurisdiction to determine the question of title

Upon examining the revenue records (Jamabandi 1997-98), the Court found the rent column was blank. It followed established precedents stating that revenue officials habitually record any person in possession as a "non-occupancy tenant" (Gair Maurusi), but such an entry is legally meaningless unless the payment of rent is proven

Regarding the second issue, the Court found no contradiction in the plaintiff's claim; even if a tenant cannot normally bequeath tenancy via a Will, the plaintiff's standing as the son and legal heir of Achhru sufficiently supported his claim to the property independently of the Will's technicalities

The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the decree in favor of the plaintiff