the plain(cid:10)ff claims to have acquired occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887; and, by opera(cid:10)on of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Ves(cid:10)ng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, to have become owner of the suit land.

4. The defendant did not appear before the trial Court despite service by publica(cid:10)on and was proceeded against ex parte. The plain(cid:10)ff examined himself and one suppor(cid:10)ng witness and produced jamabandis from 1964–65 onwards to substan(cid:10)ate his claim.

5. Both the Courts below, upon apprecia(cid:10)on of pleadings and evidence, have concurrently held that the plain(cid:10)ff failed to establish acquisi(cid:10)on of occupancy rights and consequently dismissed the suit.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the record.

7. The en(cid:10)re edifice of the plain(cid:10)ff’s claim rests upon acquisi(cid:10)on of occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act. Under Sec(cid:10)on 5(2) of the Act, a tenant seeking to establish such right must prove con(cid:10)nuous occupa(cid:10)on for thirty years and payment of rent not exceeding the amount of land revenue and rates and cesses. Sec(cid:10)on 8, being residuary in nature, does not dilute the rigour of Sec(cid:10)on 5 but merely enables recogni(cid:10)on of occupancy rights in special circumstances, where an express or implied promise of perpetual tenancy can be legi(cid:10)mately inferred.

8. A careful scru(cid:10)ny of the evidence referred by the courts below shows that the plain(cid:10)ff has not proved the founda(cid:10)onal facts necessary to a8ract either provision.

9. Firstly, the pleadings are silent as to the exact date of commencement of tenancy, the iden(cid:10)ty of the person who inducted the plain(cid:10)ff or his predecessor, and the precise terms of tenancy. A bald asser(cid:10)on of oral assurance that the tenant would never be ejected cannot, in absence of suppor(cid:10)ng material, establish a perpetual tenancy. Tenancy is a bilateral juris(cid:10)c rela(cid:10)onship and cannot be inferred merely from long possession.

10. Secondly, the revenue entries relied upon by the plain(cid:10)ff describe him as “gair maurusi” tenant. Such an entry merely denotes a non- occupancy tenant in possession under the landlord. There is no entry in the revenue record depic(cid:10)ng him as “maurusi” or occupancy tenant. The First Appellate Court has rightly observed that the mere descrip(cid:10)on as gair maurusi does not lead to an inference of acquisi(cid:10)on of occupancy rights.

11. Thirdly, the statutory condi(cid:10)on regarding payment of rent has not been sa(cid:10)sfied. Though the plain(cid:10)ff asserted payment of rent @ ₹4/- per kanal per annum, no rent receipts were produced. There is no documentary evidence of actual payment. More importantly, there is no proof that the rent paid did not exceed land revenue and cesses, which is a sine qua non under Sec(cid:10)on 5(2) of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The appellate Court has no(cid:10)ced inconsistencies in revenue entries regarding the amount of rent and has held that the requirement of law was not fulfilled .

12. Fourthly, the plain(cid:10)ff sought to invoke Sec(cid:10)on 8 of the Act on the basis of alleged village custom and implied promise. However, no independent evidence was led to establish existence of such custom. Courts cannot presume custom and it must be strictly proved. Equally, an implied promise of perpetual tenancy cannot be inferred in absence of cogent evidence demonstra(cid:10)ng nominal rent from incep(cid:10)on and special circumstances warran(cid:10)ng such inference.

13. The ves(cid:10)ng contemplated under the 1953 Act operates only in favour of a person, who was an occupancy tenant within the meaning of law; or has acquired such rights as per law. In absence of proof of occupancy status, no proprietary rights could vest in the plain(cid:10)ff.

14. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are findings of fa