1. Lease of agricultural land — Rent default — Eviction proceedings under Section 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for irregular payment of rent. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 292
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6th November 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
Kapur Chand, Appellant
Versus
B. S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigard and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 833 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar and T. S. Venkataraman, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. Bishan Narain, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 4.
Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, BISHAN NARAIN, K.L.Mehta, S.K.MEHTA, T.S.VENKATA RAMANA
B.R.L.Iyengar, BISHAN NARAIN, K.L.Mehta, S.K.MEHTA, T.S.VENKATA RAMANA
Conduct prior to a statute's enactment can be considered to determine if a tenant failed to pay rent regularly. Additionally, eviction for habitual irregularity in rent payment is a distinct legal ground from eviction for failure to deposit court-ordered arrears.
Headnote:(A) Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - Sections 9(1)(ii), 12, and 14-A - Eviction of tenant - Irregularity in payment of rent - Prospective application of statute - Conduct prior to enactment - A statute is applied prospectively, but this does not mean that conduct prior to its passing cannot be considered if such conduct is a requisite for the statute's action. Past conduct is relevant in determining whether a tenant has failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. (Para 6)
(B) Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - Section 14-A - Distinction between clauses (i) and (ii) - Eviction for irregularity vs. recovery of arrears - Clause (ii) deals with eviction as a punishment for non-compliance with court orders to deposit arrears of rent. Clause (i) deals with eviction for reasons stated in Section 9(1), including failure to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. These clauses operate on different footings, and payment of arrears under clause (ii) does not preclude eviction under clause (i) if the tenant's conduct shows habitual irregularity in payment. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A tenant leased agricultural land for five years. Disputes regarding the functionality of a tube well led the tenant to stop paying rent. Following the enactment of a statute limiting maximum rent to one-third of the crop value, the tenant continued to avoid payments, necessitating multiple court suits by the landlord for recovery of arrears. After the lease expired, the tenant continued to hold the land without paying rent. The landlord applied for eviction on the ground that the tenant had failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause.
Findings of Court:
The tenant's claim that rent was not paid due to an inability to determine the exact amount under the new rules was rejected, as the tenant failed to notify the authorities of the landlord's alleged refusal to accept rent. The tenant's conduct over several years established a pattern of avoiding rent payments under various pretexts.
Issues: Whether the conduct of the tenant prior to the enactment of the relevant section could be considered for eviction, and whether the payment of arrears under the recovery provisions of the Act precludes eviction on the ground of irregular payment of rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while a statute applies prospectively, the conduct forming the basis for an application under that statute can occur before its enactment. Furthermore, the provision for recovering arrears of rent and the provision for eviction due to irregular payment of rent are distinct; the former is a recovery mechanism, while the latter is a penalty for habitual irregularity.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether past conduct prior to the Act's enactment is relevant for eviction and whether payment of arrears under Section 14-A(ii) precludes eviction under Section 14-A(i). (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Tenant's habitual avoidance of rent under various pretexts constitutes irregularity; payment of arrears does not cure the ground for eviction based on irregular payment history. (Para 5 , 7 )
4. Conduct prior to a statute's enactment is relevant if it establishes a pattern of behavior that constitutes a ground for action under the statute. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 8 )
6. Can a tenant's conduct prior to the enactment of a statute be considered when determining if they failed to pay rent regularly?
Yes. While a statute is applied prospectively, past conduct is relevant if it establishes the necessary condition for an application for eviction, such as a pattern of irregularity in payment. (Para 6 )
7. Does the payment of rent arrears under Section 14-A(ii) prevent eviction on the grounds of irregular payment under Section 14-A(i)?
No. Section 14-A(ii) provides for eviction as punishment for non-compliance with court orders to deposit arrears, whereas Section 14-A(i) is a penalty for failing to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. (Para 7 )
8. Does the absence of rules for determining rent value under Section 12 constitute sufficient cause for non-payment of rent?
No. If a tenant fails to inform the Assistant Collector of a landlord's refusal to accept rent or demands in excess of the Act, such claims are viewed as pretexts to avoid payment. (Para 5 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : The appellant obtained on lease from the 4th respondent (Raja Charanjit Singh) 208 canals of agricultural land for five years commencing from Rabi 1951 to Kharif 1955 on an annual rent of Rs. 7,500. The lease deed was registered and was executed on November 20, 1950. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 7,500 as advance rent for one year. There was a tube well on the land and one of the terms of the lease was that the Raja would put the tube well into working order and the lease was to commence on the day this was done. The tube well was repaired on July 11, 1951 and the lease is said to have commenced on that day. According to the appellant the tube well did not deliver the right quantity of water and that led to certain disputes.
2. The appellant did not pay rent for the subsequent years. On August 15, 1952 the Raja filed a suit or recovery of Rs. 7,500 as rent for Rabi and Kharif, 1951. He claimed that Rs. 7,500 paid to him was to be retained as deposit to be adjusted towards the final payment. The appellant resisted this demand mainly on the ground that the tube well was not functioning as required by the lease deed. This suit was decreed on March 23, 1957 and an amount of Rs. 859-4-0 was found due. This was because on April 15, 1953 the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 came into force and under S.12 of that Act the maximum rent payable by a tenant for any land held by him was not to exceed 1 / 3rd of the crop of such land or of the value of the crop determined in the manner to be prescribed by Rules. For this period an amount of Rs. 4,313 was held to be the value of the produce and after making deduction for sundry payments to the Raja the decree was for the amount stated. The appellant paid that amount forthwith. The appellant did not pay the rent for the years 1952, 1953 and 1954 and on January 5, 1955 the Raja brought another suit for the recovery of Rupees 22,500 as arrears of rent for these three years and on October 8, 1956 filed a revised application under S. 14-A(ii) added from 1955 to the Act. During the pendency of this suit the appellant was asked to deposit a sum of Rupees 7,000 which he did on January 22, 1957. Later, the amount payable under S.12 of the Act was found to be Rs. 13,378-2-0 and on June 22, 1957 the appellant deposited the balance. The appellant did not pay rent for the year 1955 and though his lease expired with Khar if, 1955 he continued holding over and did not pay rent for Rabi 1956. The Raja made an application on October 10, 1956 under S. 14-A(i) for the eviction of the appellant on the ground inter alia that he had failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. Under S.14-A (i) the application for eviction lay before an Assistant Collector, First Grade, while under S. 14-A (ii) the application for recovery of arrears of rent (to which category belonged the revised application dated October 8, 1956, which we have mentioned before) lay before an Assistant Collector Second Grade. As a result the question of the eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was irregular in payment of rent was tried in one Court and the recovery proceedings were tried in another Court. The proceedings under S.14-A (i) terminated in favour of the appellant on December 24, 1958, the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Jullundur holding that the tenant had sufficient cause not to pay rent fixed by the lease deed and the Raja could not claim ejectment on that ground. The Raja appealed. The Collector, Jullundur District, on May 20, 1959 reversed the order and directed that the appellant be evicted. An appeal by the appellant before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division failed as also an application for revision before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The appellant then moved the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. His petition was summarily dismissed by a Division Bench on March 9, 1961. The appellant has filed this appeal by special
