2018 Supreme(P&H) 4393
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Zile Singh - Appellant
Versus
Deva Singh - Respondent
RSA No. 1073 of 1999 (O&M)
Decided On : 08-05-2018
Abhinav Sood, Advocate for Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the Appellants; Ajay Chaudhary and Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocates, for the Respondents
Non-payment of lease money does not result in termination of tenancy as per Punjab Tenancy Act.
Headnote:
Tenancy - Superior Right of Pre-emption - Punjab Tenancy Act, Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act - [Order 6, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs claimed superior right of pre-emption as they were in possession of the land subject to sale. Defendants disputed tenancy. Trial court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs. First Appellate Court accepted the appeal based on non-payment of lease money and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that non-payment of lease money does not result in termination of tenancy as per Punjab Tenancy Act. It also ruled that evidence only needs to be pleaded in a concise form as per Order 6, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court cannot refuse to consider a document without a translation.
Issues: Non-payment of lease money, requirement of evidence to be pleaded, refusal to consider a document without translation.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-payment of lease money does not terminate tenancy as per Punjab Tenancy Act. Evidence only needs to be pleaded in a concise form. Court cannot refuse to consider a document without a translation.
Final Decision: The judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside, and the judgment of the trial court was restored.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Plaintiffs-appellants are in the regular second appeal against the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court. Plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit claiming superior right of pre-emption on the ground that they are in possession of the land as subject matter of sale by the owner to defendant No.1 - Deva Singh vide sale deed dated 05.07.1994. Suit was contested by the defendants and tenancy in favour of the plaintiffs was disputed.
2. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the file, decreed the suit after recording a finding that the plaintiffs are proved to be in possession of the land as tenant over land measuring 3 kanals and 6 marlas comprised in Rectangle No.25, Khasra No.14/1.
3. Defendant-respondent filed the first appeal.
4. Learned First Appellate Court accepted the appeal on two grounds:- (i) plaintiff - Zile Singh has stated in his evidence that they are not paying batai/lease money to the plaintiff since 1994; (ii) the assertion of the plaintiff that they are paying batai/lease money to Khush Dayal, who is general power of attorney holder of the original owner, is beyond pleadings; (iii) copy of general power of attorney Ex.P-1 is in Urdu but translation whereof has not been filed.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions of law arise in the present case :-
(i) whether non-payment of lease money results in termination of the tenancy or not?
(ii) whether evidence is required to be pleaded or not?
(iii) Whether Court can refuse to go into a document on the ground that Hindi translation thereof has not been filed without calling upon the parties to provide translation thereof?
6. At the time of admission of the appeal, this Court had also framed a question of law, which reads as under:-
(iv) Whether plaintiff/appellant who is tenant of land has got superior right of preemption?
Question:-(i) Whether non-payment of lease money results in termination of the tenancy?
7. Suit was instituted on 03.02.1995. It is positive assertion of the plaintiffs that they have been paying rent to Khush Dayal.
8. A look at Ex.P-2 proves that Khush Dayal died on 25.05.1989. On careful examination of Ex.P-1, general power of attorney dated 01.06.1956 proves that the owner had appointed Khush Dayal as his attorney along with two other relatives authorizing them to collect the rent and the rent was being collected by Khush Dayal, who died in the year 1989. It has come in evidence that after death of Khush Dayal, his grand-son was collecting rent. Merely because for some time the rent is not proved to be paid, relationship of the landlord and tenant does not come to an end. Agricultural tenancy can only be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. Hence, learned First Appellate Court erred in returning a finding that since payment of lease money from after 1994 is not proved. Tenancy has come to an end. Question No.1 is, therefore, answered in favour of the appellants.
Question No:-(ii) Whether evidence is required to be pleaded?
9. As per Order 6, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure only facts have to be pleaded and that also in a concise form. It is specifically provided under Order 6, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement of facts in a concise form on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which such facts are to be proved. Order 6, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted as under:-
"2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence-(1) Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.
(2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divi