Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Kehar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Hukam Singh and another - Respondents
RSA No.3795, 3897 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided on : 10-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate,
Eviction--Tenant of agricultural land cannot be evicted merely on expiry of fixed lease period
Eviction--Unregistered written contract of lease with respect to agricultural land for a period of more than 1 year can be read for collateral purpose to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant
Headnote:
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34--Suit for Possession--Recovery of mense profit--Eviction--Status of tenancy after expiry of fixed lease period--Held; Tenant of agricultural land cannot be evicted merely on expiry of fixed lease period and tenant has protection of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
(B) Registration Act, 1908, S.17--Compulsory Registration--Unregistered Written Contract of Lease--Eviction--Suit for Possession--Recovery of mense profit--Whether an unregistered written contract of lease with respect to agricultural land for a period of more than 1 year can be read for collateral purpose to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant? YES-- Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34.
Held; Written contract of lease with respect to agricultural land for a period of more than 1 year is required to be compulsorily registered--However, an unregistered contract of lease can be used for collateral purposes--One of collateral purpose for which a written contract of lease can be seen is to explain character of relationship between parties--Held; written contract can be seen for arriving at a finding while determining a relationship of landlord and tenant--Therefore, Judgment of decree for suit for possession and mense profit set aside. (Paras 10 and 18)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
C.M.No.9716-C of 2018 in RSA No.3795 of 2018 & C.M.No.10128-C of 2018 in RSA No.3897 of 2018
1. Prayer in these applications is for condonation of delay of 58 and 66 days in re-filing the appeal.
2. For reasons mentioned in these applications, which are supported by an affidavit, the delay of 58 and 66 days in re-filing the appeal are condoned.
Applications are allowed.
C.M.No.9717-C of 2018 in RSA No.3795 of 2018
3. Prayer in this application for condoning the delay in making good the deficiency in the payment of Court fee.
4. Deficiency in Court fee has already been made good. Delay, if any, is condoned.
MAIN
5. By this judgment, regular second appeal nos.3795 and 3897 of 2018 shall stand disposed of as both the appeals are arising out of the same suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents. Counsel for the parties also admit that both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. Counsel for the parties have produced photocopy of the record, correctness whereof is not disputed and finally argued the appeals.
6. Defendant-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.
7. Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for possession and recovery of mesne profit with the averments that the plaintiffs are owners of the land measuring 3 bighas and 2 biswas comprised in khasra no.2706 situated within the revenue estate of village Mathana, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and the possession of the defendant-appellant is illegal, unauthorised, without any right or interest in the property.
8. Defendant-appellant contested the suit, pleading that he is in cultivating possession of the land as a tenant since the year 1985. It has been pleaded that the defendant-appellant had taken land comprised in khasra Nos.2704, 2705, 2706 and 2707 on lease in the year 1985 from its previous owner, namely, Rati Ram for a period of 2 years from 15.06.1996 to 14.06.1998 for a sum of Rs.24,000/- Defendant claims that during the period of lease, defendant along with his son purchased land comprised in khasra nos. 2704 and 2705 vide sale deed dated 05.06.1998, whereas the plaintiffs purchased the land comprised in khasra nos.2706 and 2707. It is further pleaded that the tenant-appellant had previously instituted a suit for permanent injunction against its previous owner Rati Ram and plaintiff no.1 Hukam Singh for protection of his possession. However, plaintiff no.1 Hukam Singh had taken over possession of khasra no.2707 as initially possession was taken by the receiver including the standing crops and later on the possession was delivered to the plaintiffs. Therefore, defendant-appellant continues to be in possession of land comprised in khasra no.2706 on fixed lease amount of Rs.3000/- per month.
9. Both the courts after appreciating the evidence available on the file, have chosen to decree the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:-
(i) Whether a tenant over the agriculture land becomes unauthorised occupant after the fixed period of lease comes to an end?
(ii) Whether an unregistered written contract of lease with respect to agricultural land for a period of more than 1 year can be read for collateral purpose to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant?
11. It is not disputed between the parties that the defendant-appellant had previously filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that he is in possession of the land as a tenant. In the aforesaid suit, plaintiff no.1 and predecessor-in-interest of both the plaintiffs were party defendants. In the aforesaid suit, the court had framed a issue that whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit land as lessee or not. Learned court held that the relationship of lessor and lessee is established. It may be significant to note here that plaintiff no.1 who was party defendant had disputed even t
