Bhartu Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors
[1985] INSC 11 (22 January 1985)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION: 1985 AIR 413 1985 SCR (2) 638 1985
SCC (1) 733 1985 SCALE (1)98
ACT:
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1955
Sections 7 7A and 8.
HEADNOTE:
Whether landowner has to wait for a term of
three years before terminating tenancy.
The PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1955 which was originally passed in 1955 and amended in 1955 was again amended
in 1956. The Act purports to amend and consolidate the law relating to
tenancies of agricultural land and to provide for certain measures of land
reforms.
A tenancy may be terminated in accordance
with the provisions of the Act or on any of the grounds enumerated in section
7; namely non-payment of rent within a period of six months, subleting without
written consent, cessation of personal cultivation of the tenant, user of the
land in a manner which is likely to render it unfit, and refusal by the tenant
on demand in writing to execute a kabuliyat.
In the case of tenancies subsisting at the
commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment)
Act, 1956, section 7-A provided for two grounds for termination of tenancy in
addition to the grounds specified in section 7, namely, (i) that the land
comprising the tenancy has been reserved by the landlord for his personal
cultivation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-II, and (ii) that the
landowner owns 30 standard acres or less of land and the land falls within his
permissible limit.
In the case of tenancies commencing after the
commencement of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act,
1956, section 8 provided that the minimum term of the tenancy shall be three
years, subject to the provisions of section 7.
In the appeals to this Court on the question,
whether in the case of tenancies commencing after the commencement of the Pepsu
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, section 8 provided
for an additional ground for terminating a tenancy, namely, the expiry of the
period of tenancy provided it is not less than three years.
639 Dismissing the Appeals, ^
HELD: The proper way of looking at the scheme
of sections 7, 7-A and 8 is to hold that while section 7 enumerates the grounds
on which any tenancy may be terminated, section 7-A provides for additional
grounds on which tenancies subsisting at the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 may be terminated and section
8 provides for the termination of a tenancy commencing after the commencement
of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 apart
from the grounds mention d in section 7. That is why section 7 itself uses the
word 'no tenancy shall be terminated except in accordance with the provisions
of the Act or except on any of the following grounds.' that is to say, a
tenancy may be terminated either on the grounds mentioned in section 7 or in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. [642A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 803, 834 to 83J of 1971.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4th
January, 1971 of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Letters
Patent 1 Appeal No. 227 of 1970.
T. S. Krishna Murthy Iyer and E.C. Agarwala
for the Appellant.
V. C. Mahajan, Mrs. Urmila Sirur and Sanjive
Puri for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Though we confess that during the course of the hearing we
did feel somewhat perplexed as to the proper cons- traction to be placed on the
provisions of secs. 7, 7 A and 8 of the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1955, on second thoughts we think that only one conclusion is permissible.
The PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 which was originally passed
in 1955 and amended in 1955, was again amended in 1956. The Act purports to
amend and consolidate the law relating to tenancies of agricultural land and to
provide for certain measures of land reforms. Section 3 broadly defines
"permissible limit" for the purposes of the Act to mean 30 standard
acres of land and where such 30 standard acres on being converted into ordinary
acres exceed 80 acres, such 80 acres. Section 5 enables every land owner owning
land exceeding 30 standard acres to select for personal cultivation from the
land held by him in the State in parcel or parcels of land not exceed- 640 ing
in the aggregate the permissible limit and reserve such land for personal
cultivation by intimating his selection in the prescribed form and manner to
the Collector. Section 6 requires the Collector to notify the particulars of
all lands reserved for personal cultivation of a land-owner under sec. 5.
Chapter IV-A (secs. 32-A to 32-A) deals with ceiling on land and acquisition
and disposal of surplus area. In particular sec. 32-A provides that
notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law, customs, usage or
agreement, no person shall be entitled to own or hold as land-owner or tenant
land under his personal cultivation within the State which exceeds in the
aggregate the permissible limit The subsequent provisions provide for the
determination of the surplus area and sec. 32-E provides for the vesting of
surplus area in the State Government. We have to note here that sec. 32-DD
provides that tenancies created after the commencement of the 1956 amendment in
any area which could have been declared as surplus area have to be declared for
the purposes of determining the surplus area of any person. Section 32-F vests
the Collector with the power to take possession of surplus area and sec. 32-J
describes the modes of disposal of surplus area. We are not really concerned
with all those provisions for the present purpose.
Chapter III of the Act deals with
"General rights of tenancy". Section 7 prescribes that no tenancy
shall be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Act or
except on any of the following grounds. The grounds mentioned are non-payment
of rent within period of six months after it falls due, subletting without the
consent in writing of the land-owner, cessation of personal cultivation of the
tenant in the manner and to the extent customary in the locality, user of the
land or any part of it in a manner which is likely to render it unfit for the
purpose for which the land was leased and the refusal by the tenant, on demand
in writing, to execute a kabuliyat agreeing to pay rent in accordance with the
statutory provisions. What has to be particularly noticed is that the tenancy
cannot be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Act or
except on any of the grounds mentioned in sec. 7. In other words, a tenancy may
be terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act or on any of the
grounds mentioned in sec. 7. Therefore, it means that the tenancy may be
terminated on any grounds mentioned in sec. 7 or in accordance with the
provisions of the Act provided, of course, other provisions of the Act provide
for the termination of tenancy. In the case of tenancies subsisting at the
commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment)
Act, 1956, sec. 7-A provides for two grounds for termination of tenancy in
addition 641 to the grounds specified in sec. 7, namely, (i) that the land
comprising the tenancy has been reserved by the landowner for his personal
cultivation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-II and (ii) that the
landowner owns 30 standard acres of less land and the land falls within his
permissible limit. In the case of tenancies commencing after the commencement
of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, sec.
8 provides that the minimum term of the tenancy shall be three years, subject
to the provisions of sec. 7. The question raised for consideration in the
present case is whether in the case of tenancies commencing after the
commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment)
Act, 1956, sec. 8 provides for an additional ground for terminating a tenancy,
namely, the expiry of the period of tenancy provided it is not less than three
years. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that sec. 8 is made
expressly subject to the provisions of sec 7 and when it prescribes that the
minimum period of tenancy shall be three years, it cannot possibly mean that
the tenancy may be terminated before the expiry of the term of three years
According to the learned counsel, sec. 8 means that a tenancy may not be
terminated on any ground whatsoever for three years but may be terminated after
the term of three years but may be terminated on any of the grounds mentioned
in sec. 7. Such a construction in our opinion would lead to some absurd and
anomalous results. For example, one of the grounds mentioned in sec. 7 which
enables the termination of the tenancy is the user by the tenant of the land in
a manner which is likely render the land unfit for the purpose for-which it was
leased him. If the construction placed upon sec. 8 by the appellant is to be
accepted, a tenant may, with impunity as soon as the land is leased to him, use
the land in a manner to render the land unfit for the purpose for which it was
leased to him, yet the land-owner would have to wait for a term of three years
before terminating the tenancy. This appears to us to be an absurd consequence
and it is not possible for us to accept a construction which will lead to such
disastrous results. The only alternate construction of sec. 8 is to hold that
quite distinctly from the provisions of sec. 7. a tenancy may not be terminated
within a period of three years after its commencement if the tenancy commenced
after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second
Amendment) Act, 1956, that is to say, while the provisions of sec. 7 would
always be available in the case of tenancies commencing after the Second
Amendment Act, a tenant may also be evicted on the termination of the period of
tenancy which shall not be less than three years. So construed it may appear as
if the words 'subject to the pro- 642 visions of sec. 7' are being read by us
as 'notwithstanding the provisions of sec. 7; but that may not be a correct way
of looking at what we have said. The proper way of looking at the scheme of
secs. 7, 7-A and 8 is to hold that while sec. 7 enumerates the grounds on which
any tenancy may be terminated, sec. 7-A provides for additional grounds on
which tenancies subsiting at the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 may be terminated and sec. 8
provides for the termination of a tenancy commencing after the commencement of
the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment), 1956, apart from
the grounds mentioned in sec 7. That is why sec.
7 itself uses the word 'no tenancy shall be
terminated except in accordance with the provisions of the Act or except of any
of the following grounds,' that is to say, a tenancy may be terminated either
on the grounds mentioned in sec. 7 or in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. We think that this is the only reasonable and permissible way of construing
sec. 8 in the setting of secs 7, 7-A and 8.
The view taken by us appears to have been
taken consistently by the Punjab High Court in the last 15 years and construing
as we are doing a State Act, we do not think that there are any compelling
reasons justifying any departure from the view taken by the Punjab High Court
for so long.
The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No
Costs.
N. V. K. Appeal dismissed.
Back