Under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, a sub-tenant has no right to purchase surplus land from the landlord.

K.S. Janjua, F.C. - These three revision petitions come recommended from the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division seeking an intervention in the orders of Collector, Jalandhar dated 6.3.1991.

2. Brief facts of the case as brought out by the Commissioner in his order of 16.3.1994 are reproduced below :-

The application in Form Q was decided by Asstt. Collector-Ist on 24.3.72 for allowing Jagdish Singh petitioner to purchase the land. In that application Gurbachan Singh, Charanjit Singh and Mohinder Singh were not made parties to be heard in the purchase application. Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 28.1.1982 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and remanded the case for a fresh decision for providing an opportunity of hearing to the present respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 (Mohinder Singh, Gurbachan Singh and Charanjit Singh). Thereafter, Asstt. Collector-I, on 22.8.1983 ordered Jagdish Singh to file an amended application to the extent of his claim for purchase under Section 18. Further it was ordered that the present respondents No. 2 to 4 should also file their claim for purchase of the land, for which they considered themselves to be the rightful claimants. Notice was also issued to Guru Amarjit Singh landowner, but he did not file any reply. Jagdish Singh did not amend his application and claimed his right on 23 Kanals 11 marlas as per earlier order of the Assistant Collector dated 24.3.1972. He was allowed to purchase only 10 Kanals 0 Marlas land vide order dated 3.6.1988. Similarly, respondent No. 2 Mohinder was allowed to purchase 0 Kanal 18 marlas land. Gurbachan Singh respondent No. 3 was allowed to purchase 1 Kanal 2 marlas and Charanjit Singh, respondent No. 4 was allowed to purchase 11 Kanals 11 marlas vide orders dated 3.6.1988. These orders were challenged in three appeals before the Collector, who dismissed the same on 6.3.1991.

3. Everything in the case hinges on whether a sub-tenant has any right for allotment of land which has been declared surplus in the hands of big landlords. Commissioner while recommending the revisions has held that the relationship between the sub-tenant and a tenant is similar to that between a tenant and the landlord. He has opined that the sub-tenancy had existed for more than 25-30 years and the right to purchase only accrues to the sub- tenant. According to him, since the sub-tenant and not the tenant was in cultivating possession and actual possession, therefore, the right to purchase the surplus area passes on to the sub-tenant.

4. I have heard the parties. According to learned counsel for the petitioner (Jagdish Singh), the sub-tenant has been paying rent to the landlord as Gair Marusi and Gair Marusi Dom. He has not paid anything to the tenant. He cited 1979-PLJ-page 52-56 by which the sub-tenants do acquire the rights of tenant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants pleaded that the sub-tenant is not the tenant and the theory that vis-a-vis sub-tenant becomes the landlord is not liable. He referred to 1979-PLJ-483 Section 18 and 1962 PLJ 47.

5. In Punjab, we have two laws governing the rights of the tenants (1) Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 which is applicable to erstwhile areas of Punjab, and (2). The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The two Acts treat the sub-tenant in a quite distinctive manner. In 1953 Act (Punjab) the sub-tenant has absolutely no locus-standi. He is not entitled to purchase any surplus land from the landlord. The tenant and nobody else has a right to purchase. If the tenant is guilty of sub-letting the land, he (tenant) forfeits his right. It does not mean that by virtue of having virtual tenancy, a sub-tenant acquires any right. In fact, 1953 Act does not recognise the sub-tenant. There is no way of interpreting the 1953 Statute as to mean that the rights of tenant should pass on to the sub-tenant. The well established principle is that the sub-tenant sinks and swims with the tenant. This exposi