Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 690

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
K.M JOSEPH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRS. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
SHANTI PARSHAD(D)BY LRS. & OTHERS – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6915 OF 2021 (@ SLP (C) NO. 14289 OF 2004)
DECIDED ON : 17-11-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Vineet Bhagat, K. G. Bhagat, Manju Bhagat, Archna Midha, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court is not readily inferred.
(2) If a landlord-tenant relationship is disputed, despite exclusive jurisdiction conferred on Revenue Court, to even Order eviction of a tenant, Civil Court would still retain jurisdiction in a case where there is a dispute relating to landlord-tenant relationship.

Headnote:
(A) Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Sections 25, 42 and 77(3) – Eviction of tenant – Non-payment of rent – In a case of a dispute raised by tenant about very existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, in a provision which contemplates evicting a person who is tenant, duty to render a summary decision appears incongruous with imperative need for authority to able to unravel many dimensions of a dispute which is genuinely raised by tenant about there being a landlord-tenant relationship – Law giver has proceeded on the basis that Assistant Collector is clothed with power to decide a matter relating to eviction in a summary fashion – This would be inconsistent with scenario where very existence of the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed – What is contemplated is that during pendency of proceeding before Assistant Collector even a suit in a civil court where title of landlord is questioned or there is a challenge thrown to very existence of landlord-tenant relationship is not permitted – Even in such a scenario after conclusion of proceeding, bar under Section 25 would not available – Civil Court would have power in a case where without it being a frivolous challenge to landlord tenant-relationship, in a genuine dispute relating to landlord-tenant relationship, orders passed by authorities under the Act can be found to be null and void for reason that transgressing the power conferred, authorities proceed to decide the matter, which is vexed issue relating to very existence of landlord-tenant relationship – Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court is not readily inferred – If a landlord-tenant relationship is disputed, despite exclusive jurisdiction conferred on Revenue Court, to even Order eviction of a tenant, Civil Court would still retain jurisdiction in a case where there is a dispute relating to landlord-tenant relationship. (Paras 48, 50 and 53)
(B) Rent and Eviction--Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Sections 14A and 25 – Eviction of tenant – Validity of orders under Section 14A is open to scrutiny in a Civil Court, in a situation, when tenant denies and disputes case of landlord that there is a landlord-tenant relationship--However, mere plea by tenant, should not lead, without anything more, to render Authorities helpless and bereft of power to order eviction--In a situation, where, Authority finds plea of tenant to be completely frivolous and mere attempt at blocking proceedings, validity enacted under Section 25, cannot be diluted--Power to decide, cannot be assigned to Authorities under the Act, of existence of landlord-tenant Relationship. (Para 53)
Facts of the case:
Only question, which falls for our decision, revolves around interpretation of Section 25 of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Only contention asserted by appellants is that the suit filed by the first respondent is clearly barred. On the other hand, contention of the respondents is that, having regard to both the facts and law, Suit is maintainable.
Findings of Court:
Section 14A of Act, provided for the eviction of a tenant notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. Therefore, apart from the fact that it became an exhaustive catalogue of circumstances, entitling landlord to launch proceedings for eviction and also further designating the Statutory Authority, before which, it could be filed, it provided for a bar to challenge the validity of the orders passed, except by way of the remedies provided under the Tenancy Act.
Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. An application for Ejectment was filed by the Appellants and Proforma Respondents 2 to 21 for ejectment of Respondent No. 1 on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The application was filed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector 1 st Grade, Ferozepur by Order dated 13.09.1972. The appeal filed by the first respondent before the Collector, Ferozepur under Section 24 of ‘the Act’ was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.1973. The Commissioner by order dated 04.02.1974 on revision filed by the first respondent recommended to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab for setting aside the order leaving the parties to seek relief through the Civil Court. This reference was disallowed and the revision petition of the first respondent was dismissed by the Commissioner, Punjab vide his order dated 22.08.1974. The review filed by the first respondent was dismissed. The first respondent instituted a Suit wherein the relief sought as noted in the judgment of the Trial Court is:

“... declaration to the effect that agricultural land measuring 594 kanals 17 marlas as per details given in the heading of the plaint, situated in Jhoke Harl Har, Tehsil Ferozepure as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1965-66 is owned by Mandir Jhoke Hari Har (Public Religious Endowment) through Shri Inder Singh son of Harnam Singh resident of village Jhoke Hari Har, one of the worshippers and defacto trustee of Mandir Jhoke Hari Har (defendant No.18) and defendant No. 1 to 17 have got no concern with the land and a decree for ejectment of land in dispute obtained by defendant No. 1 to 17 against the plaintiff from the Assistant Collector Grade-I, Ferozepure is nullity and without jurisdiction with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 17 from taking actual possession of the suit land.”

3. The Trial Court, by Judgment dated 18.11.1978, decreed the Suit. The Appeal carried by the appellants before the 1st Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, was dismissed. By the impugned Decree and Judgment, the Regular Second Appeal No. 1777 of 1981, has been dismissed.

4. We heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Counsel for the Respondents. The only question, which falls for our decision, revolves around the interpretation of Section 25 of the Act. Section 25 of the Act reads as follows:

“Section 25. Exclusion of courts and authorities

5. In other words, the only contention asserted by the appellants is that the suit filed by the first respondent is clearly barred. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that, having regard to both the facts and law, the Suit is maintainable.

THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

6. It is necessary to notice the case of the appellants. They claim that they purchased the suit property which measured 594 Kanals and 17 Marlas by sale deed dated 16.11.1956 from Mahant Ramji Dass. The first respondent was the tenant in the said land. The case of the first respondent, on the other hand, was that, he obtained the Suit land on lease on 20.10.1955 from Mahant Ramji Dass as the Manager of the Mandir for a period of five years on payment of Rs.1,000/- per annum as rent. Thereafter, the suit property was leased to him for a period of 20 years from 1960 to 1980. While so, it is the further case of the first respondent that Mahant Ramji Dass sold the Suit land to the appellants vide registered sale deed dated 16.11.1956, without having any title in the property, as the property belonged to the Mandir. Thus, the first respondent set up the case that he was not a tenant under the appellants. Resultantly the order passed for eviction was null and void bein

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 690

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)K.M JOSEPH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRS. – APPELLANTVERSUSSHANTI PARSHAD(D)BY LRS. & OTHERS – RESPONDENTCIVIL APPEAL NO. 6915 OF 2021 (@ SLP (C) NO. 14289 OF 2004)DECIDED ON : 17-11-2021

Cases Referred (9)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
K.M JOSEPH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRS. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
SHANTI PARSHAD(D)BY LRS. & OTHERS – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6915 OF 2021 (@ SLP (C) NO. 14289 OF 2004)
DECIDED ON : 17-11-2021