Dina Vs.
The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh
& Ors [1995] INSC 787 (5 December 1995)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.Faizan Uddin (J) Kirpal B.N. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 531 JT 1995 (9) 244 1995 SCALE (7)330
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
By
order dated July 28,
1992, a Bench of two
Judges referred the matter to a Bench of three Judges doubting the correctness
of the decision in Bhartu v. Randhir Singh & Ors. [(1985) 2 SCR 638]. The
admitted facts are that the appellant-tenant was sought to be ejected by
petition dated January,
29, 1996 from 47 Bighas
13 Biswas situated in village Burj Baghelsinghwala, Distt. Sangrur on the
ground that the period of three years of the lease had expired by that dated
and that, therefore, he was liable to be ejected.
The
Assistant Collector Grade I by order dated July 30, 1996 ordered ejectment of the appellant
under S.8 of the Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act as amended by Act
No.15/56, (for short "the Amendment Act"). It was confirmed on
appeal.
When
it was questioned in writ petition, the learned single Judge following the Full
Bench decision of the High Court in Piara Singh v. The Financial Commissioner,
Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh & Ors. [AIR 1978 Punjab 76] held that after expiry of three
years, under Section 8 the appellant is liable to ejectment. Thus this appeal
by special leave.
The
only question is whether the landlord, after expiry of three years' lease gets
right of ejectment of a tenant, under Section 8 without recourse to the
provisions of Sections 7 and 7A of the Act. Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Act
read as under:
"7.
Termination of tenancy. - (1)No tenancy shall be terminated except in
accordance with the provisions of this Act or except on any of the following
grounds, namely:-
(a)
(Omitted by Pepsu Act No.15 of 1956).
(b) that
the tenant has failed to pay rent within a period of six months after it falls
due:
Provided
that no tenant shall be ejected under this clause unless he has been afforded
an opportunity to pay the arrears of rent within a further period of six months
from the date of the decree or order directing his ejectment and he has failed
to pay such arrears during that period;
(c)
that the tenant, not being a widow, a minor, an unmarried woman, a member of
the Armed Forces of the Union or a person incapable of cultivating land by
reason of physical or mental infirmity, has after commencement of the
President's Act, sublet without the consent in writing of the landowner, the
land comprising his tenancy or any part thereof;
(d)
that the tenant has, without sufficient cause, failed to cultivate opersonally
such land, in the manner and to the extent customary in the locality in which
such land is situated;
(e)
that the tenant has used such land or any part thereof in a manner which is
likely to render the land unfit for the purpose for which it was leased to him;
(f)
that the tenant, on demand in writing by the landowner has refused to execute a
Kabuliyat agreeing to pay rent in respect of his tenancy in accordance with the
provisions of ss.9 and 10.
7(2)
(Omitted by Pepsu Act No.15 of 1956.
70A
Additional ground for termination of tenancy in certain cases: (1) Subject to
the provisions of sub-ss.(2) and (3), a tenancy subsisting at the commencement
of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, may
be terminated on the following grounds in addition to the grounds specified in
s.7, namely:- (a) that the land comprising the tenancy has been reserved by the
landowner for his personal cultivation in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter II;
(b) that
the landowner owns thirty standard acres or less of land and the land fells
within his permissible limit;
Provided
that no tenant other than a tenant of a landowner who is member of the Armed
Forces of the Union shall be ejected under this
sub-section –
(i) from
any area of land if the area under the personal cultivation of the tenant does
not exceed five standard acres, or
(ii) from
an area of five standard acres, if the area under the personal cultivation of
the tenant exceeds five standard acres, until he is allotted by the State
Government alternative land of equivalent value in standard acres.
(2) No
tenant, who immediately preceding the commencement of the President's Act has
held any land continuously for a period of twelve years or more under the same
landowner or his predecessor in title, shall be ejected on the grounds
specified in sub- s.(1) –
(a) from
any area of land, if the area under the personal cultivation of the tenant does
not exceed fifteen standard acres, or
(b) from
any area of fifteen standard acres, if the area under the personal cultivation
of the tenant exceeds fifteen standard acres;
Provided
that nothing in this sub- section shall apply to the tenant of a landowner who,
both at the commencement of the tenancy and the commencement of the President's
Act, was a widow, a minor, an unmarried woman, a member of the Armed Forces of
the Union or a person incapable of cultivating land by reason of physical or
mental infirmity.
Explanation. - In computing the period of
twelve years, the period during which any land has been held under the same
landowner or his predecessor-in-title by the father, brother or son of the
tenant shall be included.
(3)
For the purpose of computing under sub-ss.(1) and (2) the area of lan under the
personal cultivation of a tenant, any area of lan owned by the tenant and under
his personal cultivation shall be included.
x x x x
x x x
8.
Security of tenure to certain tenants. - Subject to the provisions of s.7,
every tenant admitted after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, shall hold land for a minimum
term of three years.
Provided
that nothing herein shall apply to the tenant of a person who is a widow, a
minor, an unmarried woman, a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a
person incapable of cultivating land by reason of physical or mental
infirmity." The contention of Mr. H.K. Puri, learned counsel for the
appellant is that Section 8, in the light of the Statement of Objects and
Reasons for introducing the Amendment Act, gives protection of minimum tenure
to the tenant. If the landlord seeks ejectment of the tenant, necessarily, he
has to fall back upon satisfying conditions enumerated in Section 7 and 7-A. On
expiry of three years, the tenant is not automatically liable to be ejected,
unless he commits any one of the contraventions mentioned in Section 7 or the
landlord requires the land as enumerated in Section 7-A of the Act. Shri Dua,
the learned counsel appearing for the landlord contended that the object of the
Amendment Act is not only to give protection to the tenant and small land
holders to augment their holding but also to give right to the small tenure
holders to have the tenant ejected irrespective of applicability of all or any
of the provisions enumerated in Section 7 or Section 7-A of the Act. The
question, therefore, is whether the interpretation given to Section 7, 7-A and
8 by this Court is correct in law.
The
objects and reasons have been enumerated thus:
"The
necessity for introducing certain agrarian reforms, particularly with a view to
protecting the tenants against eviction and fixing for allotees a higher limit
for reservation of land for personal cultivation, was being felt for sometime
past. This Bill seeks to achieve the object by amending the Pepsu Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1955." The object and reasons enumerates twin
purposes, namely, to give minimum period of tenancy and to protect the tenants
against unreasonable eviction and fix for allotees a higher limit for
reservation of land for personal cultivation.
These
objects were sought to be achieved by Section 8 and Section 7-A respectively.
Section 8 accords solitary protection to the tenant of minimum tenure of three
years.
It
says that subject to the provisions of Section 7, every tenant admitted after
the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, (Second
Amendment) Bill, 1956, shall hold land for a minimum term of three years. The
other part of the provision is not necessary for the purpose of this case and
so we need not again produce it. The object, thereby, clearly indicates that
the tenant shall hold the land for a minimum term of three years but such
holding should be subject to his abiding the provisions of Section 7 which
enumerates diverse conditions subject to which tenancy may be terminated by the
landlord. As seen, Section 7-A gives additional grounds to terminate the
tenancy in the cases enumerated thereunder. We are not concerned with the
effect of the provisions contained in Section 7-A.
It was
contended in the High Court that despite the contravention of any one or all
the grounds provided in Section 7, a tenant is entitled to remain in a fixed
tenure for three years which was rightly rejected. It does not appear to be a
correct reading of Section 8. Though Section 8 gives right to the tenant of the
fixity of tenure of minimum three years, it would be subject to the conditions
enumerated in Section 7. If a tenant commits any one or some or all the contraventions
enumerated in Section 7, despite the fact that Section 8 guarantees minimum
term of three years, he is liable to be ejected. In other words, though minimum
three years' tenancy right is protected, it casts corresponding duty on the
tenant to abide by law mentioned in Section 7. Equally landlord is entitled to
avail of the benefit under Section 7A to have the tenant ejected.
Otherwise,
as stated by this Court in Bhartu's case, a tenant may cause damage to the
demised land and yet remain in occupation of the land for three years which is
inconsistent with the object of Sections 7 and 8. This Court in Bhartuls case
(supra) considered the effect of it and held that the tenant is liable to
comply with the provisions of Section 7. To that extent, we are in respectful
agreement with the ratio in Bhartu's case. But on expiry of three years'
tenure, a tenant is not automatically liable to be ejected or merely because
the landlord happens to hold lesser holding or on any other ground, The tenant
would be liable to ejectment only on proof of one or some or all the conditions
mentioned in Section 7 or Section 7-A are proved by the landlord to the
satisfaction of the competent authority/officer. If the landlord wants to avail
of the right under Section 7-A, he necessarily has to prove compliance of the
conditions enumerated in Section 7A and have the tenant ejected on proof of the
grounds enumerated therein. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that de
hors Sections 7 and 7-A, Section 8 does not give any independent right to the
landlord to have the tenant ejected on mere expiry of three years' term
mentioned in Section 8.
We are
of the considered view that law was not correctly laid down in Bhartu's case /
by the majority in Piars Singh's case.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the tribunals below directing ejectment
of the appellant is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and the rule
nisi is made absolute. But, in the circumstances, parties are directed to bear
their own costs.
Back