Tekan & Ors Vs. Ganeshi [1962] INSC
68 (22 February 1962)
ACT:
Landlord and Tenant Security of land
Tenures-LandownerLessee-Mortgage-Tenant Lessee not landowner-No right to
eject-Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab 10 of 1953), ss. 2 (1),
9 (1), 14A (1) -East Punjab Displaced Persons Land Resettlement Act, 1949 (East
Punjab 36 of 1949). s. 2-Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, (Punjab 17 of 1887),
ss. 3 (2) 4 (5) Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Punjab 16 of 1887).
HEADNOTE:
The appellant is a lessee from the owner of
the land and his lease comprises a large area of land including the land of
which the respondent is the tenant. The appellant applied to the Assistant
Collector under s. 14A (1) read with s.9 ( 1) of the Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Act for the ejectment of the respondent on the ground that the
appellant was a land owner and he required the land for his own cultivation.
The application was allowed. The respondent thereupon appealed to the Colletor
alleging as the main ground that only a landowner could dispossess a tenant-atwill
and that since the appellant was not a landowner within the meaning of s. 2 (1)
of the Act was not entitled to ask for ejectment under s. 14A (1). the
Collector accepted this contention and allowed the appeal. Thereafter the
appellant appealed to the Commissioner who allowed the appeal on the ground
that a lessee being like a mortgagee with possession was a landowner for all
purposes. On revision the Financial Commissioner held that the appellant was
not a landowner and therefore not entitled to ejectment. The appellant appealed
to this Court by special leave. The only contention that was urged in the
appeal was that appellant was a landowner within the meaning of s. 2(1).
Held, as a lessee the appellant holds land
under another person namely the owner of the land from whom he has taken the
lease and is liable to pay rent. The appellant therefore being a tenant within
s.4 (5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act cannot be a landowner under s.312) of the Punjab
Land Revenue Act or a landowner within the meaning of s. 2 (1) of the Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act. Hence he is not entitled to eject the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No 367 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated November 23, 1957. of the Additional Commissioner Punjab, in
Revision No. 143 of 1956-57.
I.M. Lal and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the
appellants.
Achhru Ram and K. L. Mehta, for the
respondent.
1962. February 22. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the order
of the Financial Commissioner Punjab in respect of the application made by the
appellant under s. 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, No, X of
1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with is. 9 (1) thereof, for
ejectment of the respondent, on the ground that he was a small landowner. The
appellant claimed that he was the landowner and the respondent was a
tenant-at-will under him. He therefore claimed ejectment of the respondent on
the ground that he had less than thirty standard acres and required the land
for his own cultivation. The application was filed before the Assistant
Collector who held that the respondent was liable to ejectment and allowed the
application. Thereupon there was an appeal by the respondent to the Collector
and it was urged there that only a landowner could dispossess a tenant-at-will
under s. 14-A.
(i) and as the appellant was not a landowner
bat merely a landlord of the respondent he was not entitled to the benefit of
s. 14-A(i). The Collector accepted this contention and held that the appellant
was not a land-owner and therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the
application for ejectment. The appellant then went 388 in appeal to the
Commissioner. It may be mentioned that the appellant is a lessee from the owner
of the land and his lease comprises, a larger area of land including the land
of which the 'respondent is the tenant. The contention on behalf of the appellant
before the Commissioner was that he was a landowner within the meaning of that
word in s. 2 (1) of the Act and was' therefore entitled to eject the
respondent. The Commissioner held that the position of a lessee was just like a
mortgagee with possession and that a lessee was s. landowner for all purposes.
He therefore allowed the appeal and restored the order of ejectment passed by
the Assistant Collector. Thereupon the respondent went in revision to the
Financial Commissioner, who held that a mere lessee with only constructive
possession as in this case could not be included in the term ,landowner"
as used in the Act, and that. even if the appellant was the landlord of the
respondent he could not be held to be a landowner within the meaning of the Act.
He therefore allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Commissioner and
restored that of the Collector dismissing the appellant's application for
ejectment. This was followed by an application by the appellant to this Court
for special leave, which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up
before us.
The only question that has been urged on
behalf of the appellant before us is that the Financial Commissioner went wrong
in holding that he was not a landowner. The question whether the appellant is a
landowner or not depends upon the definition of that term in the Act, which is
in these terms:"(1) 'Landowner' means a person defined as such in the
Punjab land Revenue Act, 1887, (Act XVII of 1887), and shall include an
'allottee' and 'lessee' as defined in clauses (b) and (c). respectively of
section 2 of the East 389 Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act,
1949, (Act XXXVI of 1949) hereinafter referred to as the 'Resettlement Act'.
Explanation-In respect of land mortgaged with
possession, the mortgagee shall be deemed to be the landowner." It is not
in dispute that the appellant is not an allottee or a lessee as defined in cls.
(b) and (c) of s. 2 of the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement)
Act, (No. XXXVI of 1949). It is also not in dispute that the appellant is not a
mortgagee with possession. Therefore he can only claim to be a landowner within
this definition if he is a landowner as defined in the Punjab Land Revenue Act,
(No'. XVII of 1887). In that Act the definition of the word ','landowner"
as given in s. 3 (2) is in these terms :" landowner' does not include a
tenant or an assignee of land revenue, but does include a person to whom a
holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in farm
under this Act for the recovery of an arrear of land-revenue or of a sum
recoverable as such as arrear and every other person not hereinbefore in this
clause mentioned who is in possession of an estate or any share or portion
thereof or in the enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate." The
contention on behalf of the -appellant is that he must be held to be a
landowner within the meaning of this subsection as he is in the enjoyment of
the part of the profits of the estate. It is obvious that the last part of the
definition on which this argument is based applies to persons who are other
than tenants and assignees of land revenue, and so we will have to determine
whether the appellant is a tenant; if he is, he is not a landowner. We have
therefore to go to the Punjab Tenancy Act, (No. XVI of 1887), to find out who
is a tenant, and 390 whether the appellant is a tenant, within that Act.
Definition of "tenant" in s. 4 (5)
of that Act is as follows : 11(5) ,tenant' means a person who holds land under
another person, and is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay
rent for that land to that other person but it does not include(a) an inferior
landowner, or (b) a mortgagee of the rights of a landowner, or (c)a person to
whom a holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in
farm under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. 1887 for the recovery of an arrear of
land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear, or (d)a person who
takes from the Government a lease of unoccupied land for the purpose of
subletting it;".
It is not in dispute that the appellant does
not come within the four exceptions mentioned in this subsection. It has
therefore to be seen whether the appellant is a person who holds land under
another person and is, or but for a special contract would be liable to pay
rent for that land to that other person. We are of opinion that the appellant
satisfies this definition of the term "tenant" in s. 4 (5).
As a lessee he holds land under another
person, namely, the owner of the land from whom he has taken the lease and is
liable to pay rent equal to the lease money for the land which he has taken on
lease to that other person. The appellant is therefore clearly a tenant within
s. 4 (5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. He cannot therefore be a landowner under s.
3 (2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Incidentally we may add that this
conclusion is borne out by the fact that in the copy of the Girdawari entries,
the appellant in shown as a 391 tenant, the entry being "Taken and others,
Gairmaurasian first through Ganeshi Gair Maurasi second half. The appellant is
thus a tenant of the land of which he has taken lease and cannot be a landowner
keeping in view the definition of that term in the Act and in the Punjab Land
Revenue Act. The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Back
