The judgment emphasizes the need for tenants to establish occupancy rights beyond reasonable doubt and the distinction between different provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. It also highlights the requirement to prove custom for the grant of occupancy rights.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this judgment, RSA Nos.3330 and 3512 of 2016 shall stand disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, who admit that question which needs consideration in both the appeals, although, arising from separate suits, is common.

2. The defendant-appellant through his legal heirs has filed these two appeals against the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. The plaintiffs-respondents in both the suits, which are identical in pleadings, pray for a decree of declaration that they be declared occupancy tenants and consequently owners in possession of the property in dispute as per Section 3 of the Punjab Tenants (Vestring of Proprietary Rgiths) Act, 1953 (for short 'the 1953 Act'). In the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed that they have become occupancy tenants as per the provisions of Section 5(2) and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short 'the 1887 Act'). The plaintiffs have pleaded that they were inducted as tenants and they are in possession of the land at lease money of Rs. 1 per kanal for the last 50 years. It was further pleaded that there is a custom in the locality of acquiring occupancy right by the tenants like the plaintiffs.

3. The plaintiffs through their father had previously filed an application for claiming the same right which was initially decreed by the revenue authorities constituted under the 1887 Act, however, in appeal/revision, the order was set aside, as it was found that it is only the civil court which is competent to grant such declaration. A Full Bench of this Court, while deciding the question that whether authorities constituted under the 1887 Act, have the jurisdiction to grant such declaration, has held that the civil court has the jurisdiction.

4. The defendant-appellant contested the suit and pleaded that the property in dispute was a evacuee property allotted to him by the Rehabilitation Department. The claim made by the plaintiffs for having acquired the status of occupancy tenant and consequently ownership was denied.

5. The learned trial Court held that since it is proved on the file that the plaintiffs are in continuous possession of the property at lease money of Rs. 1.20/- per kanal, which has not been increased for quite some time and the plaintiffs are proved to be in continuous possession since 1966-67, therefore, they have acquired the right under Section 5(2) of the 1887 Act to get declaration that they have acquired the right of occupancy tenants and and therefore, ownership.

6. The learned first appellate court has held that the rate of rent remained same and never enhanced and, therefore, the findings of trial court have been affirmed.

7. This Court has heard the learned senior counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the judgments passed by the courts below and the record.

8. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the respondents admitted that the case of the plaintiffs would not fall/covered by the provisions of Section 5(2) of the 1887 Act.

However, he submitted that the case of the plaintiffs would be covered by Section 8 of the 1887 Act, which provides that status of occupancy tenant can also be acquired on any ground than the grounds specified in those provisions of the 1887 Act.

9. This Court had occasion to consider the entire scope of various provisions made in the 1887 Act with regard to acquisition of right of occupancy and consequently ownership vis a vis pursuant to the 1953 Act in RSA No.5057 of 2016 (Parbhat and others vs. Surender Singh and others), decided on 8.1.2018.

10. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the 1887 Act (deal with the rights of occupancy tenant) and Sections 2(f) and 3 of the 1953 Act, which are 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 desc