| Headnote |
A B c D E F G 497 BHAJAN LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. September 28, 1970 (J, C. SHAH ANP A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Punjab ,Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 ss. l4A 18- Applicationsfor ejectment by landlord,and for purchase of land by tenant-I/ tenant's applicr:tioncan be ard"ed, The appellant instituted a proceeding in ejectmentunder s. 14A of the Punjab Securityof Land TenuresAct, 1953but beforeorders were passed on theapplication,the tenant initiate.d a proceedingunder s. 18 exetcising his rightto purchase the land.The two proceedingsended in orders dismissingthe ejectionapplicationand .declaringthe tenantentitled to purchasethe land.On the questionwhether the tenant's application could be granted. HELD: Under s. 18 of theActif a tenantbad remainedin conti nuous occupationof thelandfor a minimumperiod of six years ·he is entitledto purchasethe landon payroent of the compensation determined. Under s. l4A,the landownermay obtainpossession of the land on the groundof non-paymentof rentby a proceeding filed beforethe Assistant Collector.If thetenant,after notice,fails to pay the. rent or give. proof ofpayment,the AssistantCollectorshallafter a summaryinquiry, eject the tenantand put the landownerin possession.But so long as the AssistantCollectorhas not passed the ejectmentorder, the tenant'sright is not extinguished; he contioues ti> be a tenantand beinga tenant is entitledto exercise his right of purchase. (501 C-G] Inthepresentcase, beforethe AssistantCollectorpassed an order in ejectment,the tenantexercised his right to purchasethe land,and that rightwouldnot be defeatedmerely because,on a subsequentdate, an orderof ejectment was passedagainsthim. He is entitled to purchase the land on paymentof theamount 1lf compensationtogether with the amount ·Of rent due by him. {501 G-H; 502 BJ Har Sarup v. FinancialCommissioner,Revenue, Punjab, (1965) 44 Lah. L.T. 157, approved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1338 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the orderdated March 7, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 326 of 1967. B .. R. L. Iyengar, R. L. Kohli and /. C. Talwar, for the appel lant. S. C. Manchanda,M. L. Aggarwal and N. K. Aggarwal, for H respondent No. 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Bhajan Lal was the owner of land measuring 21 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 2 S.C.R. bighas 2 biswas and bearingKhasra Nos. 11/12, 18, 20 and 43 in village Sukhchen. Shadi was the tenant ·Of the land for agri cultural use. Allegingthat Shadi had failed to paythe rentdue by him for the periodKharifSeason1957 to Rabi Season 1960, BhajanLal appliedunder s. 14-A of the PunjabSecuiity of Land TenuresAct, 1953,to theAssistantCollectorfor an order inejectmentagainst Shadi.The application was dismissed by the AssistantCollectorand thatorder was confirmedin appeal by theCollector.The FinancialCommissionerset asidethe orderand remandedthe case· for a fresh decision by order dated January 8, 1962. There was yet anotherproceedingregarding the samelands. On February 20, 1961 Shadi appliedto the Assistant Collector topurchase the lands Uinder s. 18·. ofthe Punjab Security of -LandTenuresAct, 1953.The AssistantCollectorrejected the application.The Collectorconfirmedthat order. By order dated October 5, 1962, the FinancialCommissionerremanded the case for determiningwhether Shadi was in occupationof the landsfor six years before the date of the petition. TheAssistantCollectorheld that Shadi couldclaim to pur chasethe landsunder s. 18 of the Punjab Security of Land TenuresAct, 1953on paying Rs. 8,409/- in ten equal instal mentsto BhajanLal. The AssistantCollectorheld in the pro ceedingfor ejectmentstarted by Bhajan Lal thatthe tenant Shadi hadwithout sufficient causecommitteddefault in payingrent andorderedthat he be evicted.The two order5 were passed on April 30, 1964. Whereas in the proceedingstarted by Bhajan Lalhe heldthat Shadi was liable to be evictedfrom the lands becausehe hadwithout sufficient causecommitteddefault in payingrent,in theproceeding filed by Shadi theAssistantCollec tordeclaredthat Shadi was entitled to purchase the landsfrom BhajanLal. The two orders were challengedrespectively by Shadi and BhajanLal in revisionapplications filed before the AdditionalCommissioner.The AdditionalCommissionerset asidethe orderin favour of Shadi and dismised the application filed byShadi. In a revisionapplicatiqn, the Financial Com missionerset aside the order of ejectmentagainst Shadi and restoredthe order of theCollectordeclaring him entitled to pur chasethe lands. Againstthe orderwhereby Shadi was declaredentitledto purchasethe lands,BhajanLal appliedto theHighCourtof Punjab for an order settingaside the order of theFinancial Commissioner.The High Court dismissed the petition in /imine. BhajanLal has appealed to this Courtwith special Leave. Section9 ( 1)of the PunjabSecurity of LandTenuresAct, 1953provides: A B c D E F G H A B BHAJAN LAL V. PUNJAB STATE (Shah, i.) 499 ''Notwithstandinganything containedin anyotherlaw forthe time being in force,no landowner shall be competent to ejecta tenantexceptwhen such tenant- (i) is a tenanton theareareservedunder this Act or is atenantof a smalllandowner;or (ii)failsto payrentregularlywithout sufficient cause; or (iii)is inarrearsof rent at thecommencement of this Act;or (iv) has failed,or fails, withoutsilflicientcause, to Ccultivate the landcomprisedin his tenancy in the manner or to the extent customaryin the localityin which the land is situate;or (v)has used, or uses the land comprisedin his tenancy in a manner which hasrendered,or rendersit unfit for the purpose for which he Dholds it; or E F G H (vi) has sublet the tenancyor a partthereof; pro videdthat whereonly a partof thetenancy hasbeensublet,the tenantshall be liable to be ejectedonly from such part;or (vii) refuses toexecutea Qabuliyat or a Patt a, in the formprescribed,in respectof his tenancyon being called upon to do. so by an Assistant Collectoron an applicationto him for this pur pose by the landowner. Explanation.-For thepurposeof clause (iii), a tenantshall be deemed to be in arrearsof rent atthecommencement of thisAct,only if the pay ment of arrears is notmade by the tenant withiii. a periodof two months from the dateof notice of theexecutionof decree or order, direc ting him to paysuch arrears of rent.n Section 14~A of the Actinsofar as it is relevantprovides: "Notwithstanding anythingto thecontrarycontain edin anyother Jaw for the time beingin force,and subjectto theprovisions of section 9-A,- (i)a land-ownerdesiring to eject a tenantunder this Act shallapplyin writingto theAssistant CollectorFirst Grade,having jurisdiction,who shall the;eafter proceed as provided for insub- .500 • (ii) SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R. section ( 2)of Section 10 of this Act,and the provisions of sub-section (3) of the said se~ tion.shall also apply in relation to such apph cation, •• • a land-ownerdesiring to recover arrears of rent from atenantshall apply in writing to the AssistantCollector,Second Grade, having juris diction, who shall thereuponsend a notice,in the form prescribed, to thetenanteither to de posit the rentor valuethereof, if payable in k~nd, or give proof of havingpaid it orof the factthat he is not liable to paythe wholeor partof therent,or of the factof ·theland lord'srefusalto receive the same or to give a receipt,within the period specified in the notice. * * * * Section 18 of theAct,insofar as it is relevantprovides: "(1) Notwithstandinganything to thecontrary con tainedin any law, usage or contract,a ten.ant of a land-ownerother than a small land-owner- A B c D (i)whohas beenin continuousoccupation of the E landcomprisedin his tenancy for a minimum periodof six years, or (ii) who has beenrestored to his tenancyunder the provisions of this Actand whose periodsof continuousoccupation of the land comprised in his tenancy immediatelybefore ejectmentandF immediatelyafter restorationof his tenancy to- getheramountsto six years or more, or (iii) • • • • shall be entitled to purchasefrom the land-ownerthe landso held by him butnot · includeci in thereserved areaof the land-owner,in thecaseof a tenantfalling within clause· (i) orclanse(ii) at any time, andin thecaseof a tenantfallingwithin clause(iii) within aperiodof oneyearfromthe dateof commencementof this Act: • •• • 'By virtue of s. 14-A the land-ownermay obtainpossessionof the landon thegroundof non-payment of rent by aproceeding. G H A B c D E F RHAJAN LAL v. PUNJAB STATE (Shah, /.) 501. filed beforethe AssistantCollector,during the subsistence of the tenancy. If the tenanthas remained in continuousoccupation of the landfor a minimumperiod of sixyearshe is entitled to purchasethe landunder s. 18 of the Act. It was urgedthat since s. 18 commencewith a non obstante clause, viz. "Notwithstanding anythingto thecontrarycontainedin anylaw,usageor contract'', if a proceedingin ejectmentis lodgedagainstthe tenantwhich ultimately is allowed,the tenant cannot makea claimduringthe pendcncyof the proceeding ·to purchasethe land.To holdotherwise,it was urged, would enablea tenantin defaultto defeatthe claimin a suitin eject mentby commencinga proceedingfor purchasingthe land. We do notthinkthat the expression "Notwithstanding anythingto the contrarycontainedin anylaw,usageor contract" whittlesdown the right of thetenantat thedatewhenhe makesa claim to. purchasethe landmerely becau1.e the tenancy is liable to be terminatedin a proceedingthen pendingfor an order in eject mentunder s. 14-A,at theinstanceof theland-owner. Under theAct, the tenancydoes not standterminatedmerely because aproceedingin ejectment is instituted.The tenancy is ~eter minedonly in theconditionsprescribedby s. 9 !ind in the man nerprovidedby s. 14-A. If a tenant is indefaultin payment ofrentthe land-ownerdesiring to recoverrent dueby the tenantmay applyin writing to theAssistantCollector who shall thereuponsend a notice to thetenantto depositthe rentdue or give proofof havingpaid it. If the tenantfails fo pay the rentor give proofof payment,the AssistantCollectorshall, aftera summaryinquiry, if he is of the view that the tenanthas notpaidor deposited the rent,ejectthe tenantsummarily and· put the land-owner in possessionof thelandconcerned.But so long as the Assistant Collectorhas not passed the order 'ejecting the tenant the rightof thetenant is notexinguished: hecontinues to remaina tenantand beinga tenanthe is enti tled to exercise his right to purchasethe land. Shadi was a tenantprior to the date of. theinstitution by GBhajanLal of theproceedingin ejectmentand he continued to remaina tenant till an order was passedby theAssistant Collectoron April 30, 1964.But before that date Shadi had exercised his right to purchasethe landand thatright to pur chase the landwouldnot be defeatedmerely becauseon a date subsequentthereto an order in ejectment was passedagainsthim .. H Shadi,had therefore,at thedatewhen he initiatedproceeding under s. 18 rightto purchasethe land.By thesubsequentorder inejectmentmade against him the statutoryright of Shadi was .not prejudiciallyaffected. 5-U36 Sop.CJ/71 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (197 l] 2 S.C.R. We agree with the observationsof Mahajan, J., in Har Sarupand Anr. v. TheFinancialCommissioner,Revenue Pun jab(1) at p. 159: "But, at thetimewhensection 18 application was filed, no orderfor evictionhad beenpassed.There fore,at thattime,the relationshipof landlordand tenantdid exist.Mr. Daultahas notbeenable to pointto. meanyprovisionof Jaw which wouldmake theevictiondecree operativefrom the date oJ' the eviction application. ·.Themere fact thatthe tenantshad incur redthe liabilityfor evictionby reasonof non-payment ofrentwouldnot putan endto theadmittedrelarion shipof landlordand tenantbetweenthe parties.This liabiliiyonly puts an endto theaforesaidrelationship whenthe evictiondecree is passed.The eviction decreewas passed Jong after the section 18 application. Therefore,the presentpetition is liable to succeedonly tohaveextentof section 18 application,that is, the ienantswould be entitledto purchasethe land. * * * *" But aslightmodificationneeds to bemadein theorder.A proceedingfor recoveryof rent was commencedagainst Shadi. It is l'lOt clear whether the amountof compensationdetermined by the AssistantCollector as payable by Shadi for purchasing thelandincludesthe rentin arrears. w~ declarethat Shadi will be entitledto purchasethe landon paymentof theamount of compensationtogether with the amountof rentdue by him. The AssistantColleciorwill passappropriateorder in that b.e half and directthat paymentbe madein appropriateinstalments under s. 18(4)(a). Subject tothatmodification,the appealfails and is dismissed withcosts. V.P.S. Appealdismissed. (I) (1965) 44 Lah. Law Times 157 A B c D E F |
