Occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act require clear agreements at tenancy inception; mere long possession or nominal rent is inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The plaintiff/appellant (Jage) since deceased filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be an occupancy tenant of land measuring 31 kanals and 11 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 20, Khata No. 63, bearing Khasra Nos. 9//11(7-11), 13//21 (8-0) 1(8-0), 22//12 (8-0) situated at Village Liwaspur, Tehsil and District Sonepat on the ground that he was in cultivating possession of the land for the last more than 100 years through his predecessor- in-interest as tenant and was paying fixed nominal rent. The rent had never been increased, though the prices of agricultural produce had gone up. There was an agreement between the parties at the time of inception of tenancy that the plaintiff would never be ejected from the land in question. As such, he had acquired occupancy rights under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and became owner of the land as per the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952.

2. On notice, defendant (Muthra) denied the allegations and alleged that the suit land was the reserved area of the defendant. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit land on account of their occupancy rights as alleged? OPP

(ii) Relief.

3. The suit was held to be not maintainable before Civil Court by learned Civil Judge, but in appeal, learned District Judge, Sonepat, remanded the case for fresh decision vide order dated 30.07.1987 holding that the suit was maintainable. The suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge on 17.09.1987 by recording a finding that there was no agreement between the parties at the time of inception of the tenancy that the plaintiff would never be ejected from the land in dispute as has been admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination that he was not aware whether any such talk had taken place between his predecessor and the predecessor of the defendant. Learned Civil Judge also rejected the contention that the plaintiff is paying fixed nominal rent and the rent has never been increased.

4. Learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff by upholding the judgement and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sonepat.

5. Aggrieved by the judgements and decrees so passed, the present appeal has been filed.

6. Notices were served upon the respondents. Record was requisitioned. Arguments were heard at length.

7. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned senior counsel for the appellants, assailed the findings of both the Courts below by placing reliance upon Division Bench judgement of this Court in Hazara Singh Vs The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, 1995 PLJ 75, wherein Mangta was engaged as tenant under Chhajju on payment of Rs. 80/- per annum as lease amount and on the basis of continuous and long possession over the suit land for over 30 years by tenant Garibu son of Mangta, his legal representatives claimed that they had become occupancy tenants in respect of the suit land as there was no increase in rent and they had also installed a tube-well in the year 1976-1977 without any objection from the side of Hazara Singh and others. The suit was resisted on the ground that there was no specific agreement for creation of occupancy tenancy between the parties at the time of inception of tenancy. The tenants were in possession of the land in dispute only as tenants-at-will and there was increase in annual rent from Rs. 80/- per annum to Rs. 115/- per annum as shown in Khasra Girdawri for the year 1947-1948 and later on this rent was increased to Rs. 200/- per annum in the year 1949-1950