IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1462-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision : 08.04.2026 RASENDER AND ORS. ....Appellants Versus OM PARKASH AND ORS. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate for the appellants.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-5404-C-2023 This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 20 days in re-filing the instant appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

20 days in re-filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

CM-5403-C-2023 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the instant appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

24 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

RSA-1462-2023 (O&M)

By way of present appeal, plaintiffs No.2 to 4 have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby their suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction, stands dismissed.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position before the Court of the First Instance, i.e., appellants as ‘plaintiffs No.2 to 4’, respondents No.1 to 15 as ‘defendants No.1 to 15’ and respondent No.16 as ‘appellant No.1’, 3. Plaintiffs claim to be owners of the suit land. As per plaint, the land in question was given by predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs to the forefathers of the defendants for cultivation. No rent was ever paid to the plaintiffs. As per the revenue record, the defendants and their predecessors- in-interest were recorded as Gair Marusi Bai Wajah Kabja Derina. As per the plaintiffs, they terminated tenancy by serving legal notice dated 10.11.2014 upon the defendants, requesting them to hand-over the possession of the land. Defendants having failed to comply with the same, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek possession.

4. Suit was contested by the defendants claiming themselves to be occupancy tenants. As per defendants, they have attained ownership by the dint of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1952 Act’). Defendants also preferred counter claim seeking declaration to the effect that they have become owners in possession of the suit property by the dint of 1952 Act.

5. Both the Courts below have rejected the claim of the defendants qua occupancy tenancy and dismissed their counter-claim.

6. The Courts below have non-suited the plaintiffs as well, holding that even though defendants have failed to prove themselves to be occupancy tenants, but still are tenants and thus plaintiffs need to proceed against the defendants for possession under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

7. After arguing for some time, Mr. Saini prays for withdrawal of the present appeal with liberty to approach the Revenue Courts for eviction of the defendants.

8. This Court finds that the permission has already been granted to the appellants in view of following observations made by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment:

25. Now coming to the question that whether the plaintiffs who are recorded owner in the jamabandi are entitled to a decree for possession. The plaintiff has himself pleaded the permissive possession of the defendants over the suit land. So they claimed defendants to be their tenants. Under section 43 of Punjab Tenancy Act 1887, the landlord may apply to the revenue officer for the ejectment of the tenant when a tenant has not a right of occupancy. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to seek a decree for possession from the civil court. Further, no evidence of any kind has