Back
2015 Supreme(SC) 170
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal & Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Shyam Lal – Appellant
versus
Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4245 OF 2012
Decided on: 27-02-2015
IMPORTANT POINT
When a Bench differs from views of another co-ordinate Bench, the proper course would be to refer the matter to larger Bench.
Headnote:(a) Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Section 2(6) r/w Section 2(8), Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 – Tenant – Includes a self cultivating tenant and is liable to pay rent. (Para 13)
(b) Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Sections 9, 14, 14A and 18 – Tenant can be ejected only in the manner prescribed in the Act – Not in terms of any contract on the basis of which he occupies possession – Power and jurisdiction to hear and decide eviction case vesting in Revenue Authority – Therefore, action for eviction of tenant has to be taken before Revenue Authority. (Para 19)
(c) Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887Section 9 and 14 – Eviction of tenant – Agricultural land – Governed by tenancy law – Lease terms – Tenant cannot be evicted I terms of lease – Eviction can be ordered only on grounds enumerated in section 14 – Only Revenue court has jurisdiction – Sukhdev Singh opining otherwise – Matter referred to larger Bench. (Para 32, 33)
(1971) 1 SCC 34; (2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427; 1977 PLJ 315; 1981 PLJ 362; (1997) 9 SCC 468; (1997) 2 SCC 706; (1997) 2 SCC 706 – Referred
(1979) 4 SCC 214; (1995) 5 SCC 698 – Distinguished
SLP(C)No.18654 of 2008 – Differed from
(d) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – A Bench differing from views of another co-ordinate Bench – Proper course is to refer the matter to larger Bench. (Para 34)
Facts of the case:
The litigation between the parties commenced on the filing of the suit by the plaintiff-appellant for permanent 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 trial court 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, the plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed.
The plaintiff-appellant then moved the High Court by way of second appeal which was dismissed with costs.
Finding of the Court:
In view of the Bench differing from Sukhdev Singh, matter referred to larger Bench.
Result: Matter referred to larger Bench.
Judgment
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 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 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.
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.
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,
