To establish occupancy rights under section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, the tenant must prove circumstances from which an inference can be drawn that there was an implied promise not to eject them from the land for ever.

R.N.Mittal, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Faridkot dated 5th December, 1979.

2. Briefly the facts are that Biru alias Bir Singh son of Dhanna was the owner of the land in dispute. He leased it out to Nidhana and Harnama, real brothers. Both of them have died. First Harnama died unmarried and his inheritance came to Nidhana. Nidhana died leaving the plaintiffs as his sons. The case of the plaintiffs is that Biru was issueless. He left India for a foreign country near about 1940 and never came back. Even his whereabouts were unknown. He is thus presumed to be dead. The lease in favour of Nidhana and Harnama was created with a promise that they would never be ejected. It is further alleged that in the circumstances of the case Nidhana acquired the occupancy rights under section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ``the Act). Thereafter Nidhana, on coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (hereinafter called ``the 1953 Act) became owner of the land. The defendants approached the revenue authorities for sanctioning the mutation of the land in their favour alleging that they were the children of Birus sisters, Smt. Nand Kaur and Smt. Chand Kaur. The mutation was attested in their favour. Consequently the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they were the owners and in possession of the land.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants who controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs and inter alia pleaded that they did not become owners of the land. They also denied that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Some other objections were also raised by the parties but they do not survive in second appeal.

4. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs were proved to be occupancy tenants under section 8 of the Act and they became owners by virtue of the 1953 Act. It was further held that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Defendants No. 1 to 5 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Faridkot who held that there was no sufficient evidence to hold that the plaintiffs had acquired occupancy rights in the land. However, he held that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Consequently he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. They have come up in second appeal to this Court.

5. The two questions that require determination are : Where the plaintiffs became owners of the land and whether the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. On the first question, Shri H.L. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, has argued that Nidhana and Harnama were not paying rent more than the land revenue and no attempt was ever made by Biru to increase the rent during the long period in which they remained in possession and consequently, they acquired occupancy rights within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. After the coming into force of the 1953 Act, Nidhana who had also inherited the rights of Harnama became its owner. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Muni Ram v. Phullia & Lalu, 1974 PLJ 369.

6. I have duly considered the arguments. In order to determine the question as to whether Nidhana became an occupancy tenant, it is necessary to see the provisions of the Act. Section 8 is a general section dealing with establishment of right of tenancy. It says that nothing in the earlier sections shall preclude any person from establishing the right of tenancy on any ground other than the grounds specified in those sections. Section 9 provides that no tenant shall acquire a right of occupancy by mere lapse of time. The circumstances in which a tenant can acquire occupancy rights under section 8 have been the subject matter of judicial interpretation since long. It is not necessary to refer to the large number of cases on the subject, as R.S. Narula, C.J., in Muni Rams case (supra) after noticing va