The court affirmed that occupancy rights can be established through long-standing tenancy and implied promises, as per the Punjab Tenancy Act and the 1952 Act.

JUDGMENT

Sudeepti Sharma, J.

CM No.11228-C of 2023

Prayer is for condonation of 65 days delay in filing the present appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 65 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main case

3. Appellants-defendant Nos.6A & 6B have preferred this regular second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari whereby the appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rewari, decreeing the suit of the respondent No.1/ plaintiff has been dismissed.

4. Briefly noticed, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking relief of declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and proforma defendants were coming as tenants in possession of suit land comprised in Khewat No.98, Khatoni No.123, Rectangle No.78, Killa No.21/2 (3-6) 22 (8-0), Rect No.87, Killa No.3 Min garab (6014) total measuring 18 kanal situated within the revenue estate of Village Baasduda, Tehsil & District Rewari since previous 60 years on payment of rent revenue and cess as (Chakota Saal Tamam). Consequential relief was also sought to restrain the defendant from interfering into his possession or to dispossess him. Respondent No.1-plaintiff pleaded that he became owner of the land on the following grounds:

(a) That the suit land was lying Banjar and uncultivated and the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent No.1/plaintiff were given the suit land by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants/defendants for cultivation on payment of rent revenue and cess for the time being chargeable as 'Chakota Saal Tamam' which comes within the definition of Favourable rent and further promised that the predecessor-in-interest and their successors including the respondent No.1/plaintiff will not be ejected from the suit property.

(b) That on the assurance given by the landlords/the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants-defendants, the predecessors of the respondent No.1/plaintiff brought the land under their cultivation after spending a huge amount and hard labor for making the suit land fit for cultivation and fertile.

(c) That the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent No.1/plaintiff and after them the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been cultivating the suit land continuously and have not so far been ejected from the same as there was a promise never to eject the tenants.

(d) That since the time of inception of the tenancy of the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent No.1/plaintiff and till today the rates on which the land was given on cultivation have not increased.

(e) That there is a custom prevalent in the areas where the suit land is situated that the tenants like the respondent No.1/plaintiff has become the owners of the land under their cultivation.

(f) That the rates of the rent is similar from the inception of tenancy till today i.e Rs. 1.80 Chakota Saal Tamam whereas the prices of the goods have enormously increased.

5. Having filed the suit on the said cause of action, respondent No.1/plaintiff also sought a decree for declaration that he had acquired rights under Sections 5 & 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and by virtue of Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (for brevity "1952 Act"); with a consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the appellants/defendants from interfering into the possession of the respondent No.1/plaintiff or to dispossess them.

6. Upon notice, appellants-defendants appeared and filed joint written statement. In preliminary objections, it is inter alia stated that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as he had no locus standi or cause of action to file the same. They denied the claim of the respondent No.1/plaintiff and proforma defendants and disputed that they were settled on the suit land as tenants a