Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal
RSA No.5297 of 2003 (O&M)
Joga Singh
v.
Sukhwinder Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 21/02/2019}
Mr. Rajesh Garg, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Nimrata Shergill, Advocate, for the respondents.
Eviction--Landlord and tenant relationship--If the relationship is denied, jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred
Headnote:
(A) Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, S.7--Eviction Petition--Denial of landlord and tenant relationship--Jurisdiction of Civil Court--If the relationship is denied from very beginning, jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred--Held; party has a right to file a civil suit and establish before the Civil Court that the proceedings before Revenue Courts were without jurisdiction as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.9.
On reading of Section 7 of the Act of 1955, it is apparent that sine-qua-non for initiating proceedings is to the effect that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant--A word of caution, this Court is not laying down that the courts of limited jurisdiction does not have power to proceed with the proceedings if relationship of landlord and tenant are denied. However, if the relationship is disputed, the party has a right to file a civil suit and establish before the Civil Court that the proceedings were without jurisdiction as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. No doubt, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 47 of the Act of 1955 is barred with respect to conclusion of the court of limited jurisdiction for grounds of eviction and matters relating thereto which falls within the exclusive domain of Court/Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1955. However, on question whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant, order passed by the court of limited jurisdiction cannot be held to be final. (Para 15)
(B) Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, S.7--Eviction Petition--Denial of landlord and tenant relationship--Jurisdiction of Civil Court--Civil Court has the jurisdiction once existence of the tenancy itself is disputed--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.9. (Para 21)
JUDGMENT
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.:- Plaintiff no.1-appellant is in the regular second appeal against the judgments passed by both the courts below.
2. In the considered view of this court, the substantial question of law which arises for determinations is:-
“Whether a person who denies relationship of landlord and tenant from the very beginning can file a civil suit challenging the correctness of orders passed by the court/tribunal of limited jurisdiction under Sections 7 and 7-A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’)?
3. Some facts are required to be noticed.
4. Plaintiffs have pleaded that the land in dispute was owned by Basant Singh, who agreed to sell his land including the land in dispute measuring 1 kanal and 7 marlas to Balwant Singh, predecessor of the plaintiffs vide agreement to sell dated 27.10.1977 and delivered possession of the suit land including other land. Thereafter, Balwant Singh (since deceased) cultivated the suit land under the agreement to sell. There was some dispute regarding the suit land and litigation was pending in Court, hence, sale deed could not be executed in favour of Balwant Singh. Thereafter, Joginder Singh, father of defendant no.1 got executed a sale deed in favour of his son on 05.06.1988 alleging himself to be attorney of said Basant Singh, the owner.
5. Later on a Civil Suit No540 dated 05.06.1990 was filed by the plaintiff claiming possession on the ground that Basant Singh is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the suit land. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.11.1994. However, during the pendency of the suit, defendant no.1 filed a suit under the Act of 1955 seeking ejectment of Basant Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs) seeking his eviction by asserting that Basant Singh was a tenant on the said land.
6. Basant Singh contested the eviction proceedings on the ground that he is not a tenant under defendant no.1 and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, eviction was ordered by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 27.10.1994 and order was affirmed in appeal vide order dated 28.04.1995.
7. Thereafter, the plaintiffs who are successor in interest of late Sh. Basant Singh filed the present suit. The suit was contested and it was pleaded that the Civil suit is not maintainable being barred under Section 47 of the Act of 1955.
8. Learned trial court as well as learned first appellate court have primarily dismissed the suit on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness and validity of the orders passed under the Act of 1955. Learned trial court has additionally also dismissed the suit on the ground that the correctness of the order of eviction has also been challenged in the High Court where the matter is pending. It may be noted that the learned counsel for the parties admit that the writ petition filed challenging the eviction orders has since been withdrawn.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, the question which has been posed above is required to be answered.
10. The Act of 1955 deals with various eventualities. However, for the purpose of decision of the present case, relevant provisions are contained in Sections 7, 7A and 47 of the Act of 1955. In the present case, eviction order was passed in proceedings which were initiated under Sections 7 and 7A of the Act of 1955, which are extracted as under:-
7. Termination of tenancy.- (1) No tenancy other than a tenancy of the landowner who is member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a Non-Resident Indian shall be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of this Act or except on any the following grounds, namely :-
[(a) * * * * *]
(b) that the tenant has failed to pay rent within a period of six months after it falls due: Provided that no tenant shall be ejected under this clause unless he has been afforded an opportunity to pay the arrears of rent within a further period
