A tenant-at-will who pays land revenue and cesses on behalf of the landlord is deemed to be paying rent, and is therefore entitled to the protection of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who on appeal affirmed the judgment and decree of Subordinate Judge 2nd Class, Gurgaon, dismissing their suit for declaration that they had become owners of the suit land under the provisions of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

2. The plaintiffs came to the court with the allegations that they had been cultivating the suit land for more than two generations on a fair rent and at the time of inception of the tenancy, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants agreed that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs will never be evicted from the suit land. They fulfilled all the conditions of Ss.5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and after the commencement of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, they had become the owners of the suit land and they were wrongly described as the tenant-at-will in the revenue record. They further disputed the right of defendant 4 to transfer 1/4th share of the disputed property to defendant 5 and alleged that the sale was not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs.

3. The defendants denied the allegations of the plaintiffs and pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the plaintiffs were only licensees on the land in dispute and they were cultivating the suit land with the permission of the defendants on account of relationship. It was asserted that defendants 4 Smt. Shanti Devi was competent to transfer 1/4th share in the disputed property to defendant 5 and the sale was perfectly legal and valid.

4. The learned trial Judge, framed the following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiffs have become occupancy tenants of the suit land as alleged in the plaint and thus the owners of the suit land? DPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4-A. Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant 5 dt. 18-1-1982, is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs? DPP.

5. Relief.

5. Issues Nos. 3 and 4 were found in favour of the plaintiffs and issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4A against the plaintiffs. Before the first appellate Court, only issue No. 1 was pressed by the appellants.

6. The learned Additional District Judge, on the basis of the entries in the revenue record held that the plaintiffs were not paying any rent to the land owners. Consequently, there could be no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The revenue record revealed that they were in possession of the suit land on account of relationship.

7. The learned first appellate Court refused permission to the appellants to produce the copies of jamabandis for the years 1919-20 and 1923-24, which were sought to be produced by way of additional evidence under O.41, R.27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge refused permission to produce these two documents on the grounds that the same were not required by him for pronouncing the judgment; the appellants were given large number of opportunities to produce the said documents before the trial Court and that at the trial Moharrir Patwari was summoned with the excerpts but later on the excerpts were not got prepared and the witness was not examined.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the lower appellate Court was in error in refusing permission to the appellants to produce the copies of Jamabandis for the years 1919-20 and 1923-24 by way of additional evidence. It is correct that the appellants were negligent at the trial and they did not produce the revenue record which was sought to be produced at the app