2018 Supreme(P&H) 3752
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Parbhat - Appellant
Versus
Surender Singh - Respondent
RSA No. 5057 of 2016
Decided On : 08-01-2018
Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Varun Parkash, Advocate, for the Appellants
Mere long possession does not entitle a tenant to acquire occupancy rights, and evidence is required to establish a right of occupancy on grounds other than those specified in the Act.
Headnote:
Punjab Tenants - Rights of Occupancy - Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and Punjab Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, Sections 2(f), 3
Fact of the Case:
The tenants claimed ownership and occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 and Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to fulfill the requirements of Section 5(2) of the 1887 Act and did not provide evidence to establish a right of occupancy under Section 8. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had already been allotted proprietary rights for a share of the land.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to be declared as occupancy tenants and owners under the relevant Acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right of occupancy under Section 8 of the 1887 Act and that mere long possession does not entitle a tenant to acquire occupancy rights. The court also emphasized the need for evidence to establish a right of occupancy on grounds other than those specified in the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the first appellate court.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - By this judgment, appeals bearing RSA Nos.3367, 3374 to 3382, 3581 to 3583, 4901, 5095 and 5097 of 2016 shall stand disposed of.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has accepted that question involved in all these appeals is common.
3. Tenants are claiming declaration to the effect that they have become owners of the land, in view of the provisions of the Punjab Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 ('the 1953 Act'). The tenants are further claiming that they be declared occupancy tenants, in terms of Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 ('the 1887 Act'). Plaintiffs/Tenants also prayed for grant of decree for permanent injunction.
4. The learned trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs after recording a finding that although the plaintiffs do not fulfill the requirements of Section 5(2) of the 1887 Act, yet they are entitled to be declared as occupancy tenants under Section 8 of the 1887 Act and hence became owners under the 1953 Act. However, the learned first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and hence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-tenants. Regular Second appeals have been preferred by the plaintiffs-tenants.
5. Before noticing the facts and contentions, it shall be useful to extract the relevant statutory provisions of the 1887 Act and the 1953 Act, which are as under:-
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the 1887 Act deal with the rights of occupancy tenant, which are extracted as under: -
"5. Tenants having right of occupancy - (1) A tenant(a) who at the commencement of this Act has for more than two generations in the male line of descent through a grandfather or grand-uncle and for a period of not less than twenty years, been occupying land paying no rent therefore beyond the amount of the land-revenue thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon; or
(b) who having owned land, and having ceased to be landowner thereof otherwise than by forfeiture to the Government or than by any voluntary act, has since ceased to be land-owner continuously occupied the land; or
(c) who in a village or estate in which he settled along with or was settled by the founder thereof as a cultivator therein, occupied land on the twenty-first day of October, 1868, and has continuously occupied the land since that date; or
(d) who being jagirdar of the estate or any part of the estate in which the land occupied by him is situate, has continuously occupied the land for not less than twenty years, or, having been such jagirdar, occupied the land while he was jagirdar and has continuously occupied it for not less than twenty years, has a right of occupancy in the land so occupied unless, in the case of a tenant belonging to the class specified in the clause (c), the landlord proves that the tenant was settled on land previously cleared and brought under cultivation by, or at the expense of, the founder.
(2) If a tenant proves that he has continuously occupied land for thirty years and paid no rent therefore beyond the amount of the land-revenue thereof and the rates and cases for the time being chargeable thereon, it may be presumed that he had fulfilled the conditions of clause (a) of sub-section (1).
(3) The words in that clause denoting natural relationship denote also relationship by adoption, including therein the customary appointment of an heir and relationship, by the usage of a religious community.
6. Right of occupancy of, other tenants recorded as having the right before passing of Punjab tenancy Act, 1908 - A tenant recorded in a record-of-rights sanctioned by the State Government before the twenty-first day of October, 1868, as a tenant having a rights of occupancy in land which he has continuously occupied from the time of the preparation of that record, shall be deemed to has a right of occupancy in that lands unless the contrary has been established by a decree of a competent Court in th