IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 19.05.2025

1. RSA-4145-2013 (O&M)

Pushkar and others ...... Appellants versus Ompal and others ...... Respondents

2. RSA-4146-2013 (O&M)

Pushkar and others ...... Appellants versus Ompal and others ...... Respondents

3. RSA-4149-2013 (O&M)

Pushkar and others ...... Appellants versus Ompal and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. These are bunch of appeals preferred by the defendant-land owners.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaration to the effect that they being occupancy tenants have become owners by the dint of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953.

Both the Courts below have decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs holding them entitled to the decree of declaration.

3. Mr. Goel while assailing the findings recorded by the Courts below submits that the tenants failed to prove that they were in possession of land as ‘occupancy tenants’. In terms of Section 9 of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, mere long possession as tenants does not vest right of occupancy in the tenant. He further submits that even though in the revenue record, it has been recorded in column No.9 that the plaintiffs are paying rent equivalent to land revenue i.e. Rs.25/-. However, the presumption attached to record of rights is rebutted by admission of plaintiffs. Reference is being made to testimony of PW1, where he admitted that at times they were paying rent of Rs.75/- and at times were paying rent of Rs.100/- to the defendants. He submits that so is the testimony of PW3 lambardar Badri Parsad. He further relies upon ratio of law laid down in Tara Chand vs. Bihari Lal and others, reported as 2018(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 443, which has been upheld by Supreme Court in SLP No.23018/2018.

4. Per contra, Mr. Gupta submits that Tara Chand’s case is based upon ratio of law laid down in Jaleb Khan and others vs. Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and others 2009(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 385. The same is not applicable to the present case. He submits that the ratio of law laid down in Mauj Khan and others vs. Deen Mohd. and another 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 700 would be applicable and the same is pending adjudication before Supreme Court in civil appeal No.001064 of 2017. Mr. Gupta further had made reference to Section 5 and 8 of 1953 Act to submit that the plaintiffs being in possession as tenants on paying rent not more than the land revenue attained rights of occupancy tenants and by dint of 1953 Act became owners thereof. He further submits that this Court in second appeal, need not upset the pure findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, as the same is beyond the scope of second appeal.

5. Reference is made to Ram Chand Premi vs. Nawab Kaur 2004(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 237, Kulwant Singh vs. Phula Singh 2004(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 28, Manorama Thampuratti vs. C.K. Sujatha Thampuratti and others 2000 AIR (Supreme Court) 3400, Ratnam Chettiar and others vs. S.M. Kuppuswami Chettiar and others 1976 AIR (Supreme Court) 1 and Sadhu vs. Mst. Kishni 1980 AIR (Punjab and Haryana) 85.

6. Mr. Gupta further relies upon order passed by this Court in Rattan Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana to submit that a landlord is entitled to claim rent upto 1/3 batai. Thus, wherever rent is less than 1/3 batai, the same has to be construed as nominal rent and thus, the same shall vest the tenant with occupancy rights.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the fate of the present appeals hinges on the issue:-

(i) Whether the plaintiffs proved themselves to be occupancy tenants or not?

9. Before embarking upon the merits of the case, it will be apt to deal with the objection raised by Mr. Gupta regarding scope of second appeal.

10. Five Judges