Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N.Grover : J.C.Shah
Bhajan Lal
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 1338 of 1967
Date of Decision : 9/28/70
Advocates Appeared: Agarwal M.L. : Agarwal N.K. : Iyengar B.R.L. : Kohli R.L. : Manchanda S.C. : Talwar J.C.
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Sections 14, 18, 9 – Rent due – Bhajan Lal was owner of land – 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. – Application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector and that order was confirmed in appeal by the Collector. – Financial Commissioner set aside the order and remanded the case for a fresh decision by order – There was yet another proceeding regarding the same lands. – Shadi applied to Assistant Collector to purchase lands under S. 18 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. – Assistant Collector rejected the application. – Collector confirmed that order. – By order, Financial Commissioner remanded the case for determining whether Shadi was in occupation of the lands for six years before the date of the petition – Held, Tenancy does not stand terminated merely because a proceeding in ejectment is instituted. – 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 Assistant Collector – But before that date Shadi had exercised his right to purchase 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 lands. – By the subsequent order in ejectment made against him the statutory right of Shadi was not prejudicially affected. – 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. – Court 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. – Assistant Collector will pass appropriate order in that behalf and direct that payment be made in appropriate instalments under S. 18(4) (a). – Appeal Dismissed
J.C. SHAH, J.
(1) BHAJAN Lal was the owner of land measuring 21 Bighas, 2 Biswas and bearing Khasra Nos. 11/12, 18, 20 and 43 in village Sukhohan. 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 8/01/1962.
(2) THERE was yet another proceeding regarding the same lands. On 20/02/1961, 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 5/10/1962, 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.
(3) THE Assistant Collector held that Shadi could claim to purchase the lands under S. 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, on paying Rs. 8,409.00 in ten equal instalments to Bhajan Lal. The Assistant Collector held in the proceeding for ejectment started by Bhajan Lal holding 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 30/04/1964. 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.
(4) 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.
(5) S. 9(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, provides :
"NOTWITHSTANDING anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no land-owner 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 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 renders it unfit for the purpose for which he holds it ; or
(VI) has sublet the tenancy or 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 purpose of clause (iii), a tenant shall be deemed to be in arrea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
