Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Before the aforesaid questions are being considered, it will be appropriate to reproduce Sections 42, 43 and 44 of the Tenancy Act and Section 9(1) of the Land Tenures Act, which provide as under: -

"42. Restriction on ejectment.- A tenant shall not be ejected otherwise than in execution of a decree for ejectment, except in the following cases, namely:-
(a) when a decree for an arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed against him and remains unsatisfied:
(b) when the tenant has not a right of occupancy and does not hold for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order of competent authority.

15. The Tenancy Act provides for determination of certain disputes between the landlord and tenant by the Revenue Officer/Revenue Court. Section 77 of the Tenancy Act provides for institution of suit in respect of certain matters or with respect to filing of an appeal or other proceedings arise out of such suit before the Revenue Court. Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Tenancy Act provides for suits by a landlord to eject a tenant; and Clause (ii) of the said sub-section provides suits by a landlord for arrears of rent or the money equivalent of rent, or for sums recoverable under Section 14 of the said Act. This Act further provides for grounds of ejectment of the tenant. Section 39 of the Tenancy Act provides for grounds of ejectment of occupancy tenant. Clause (c) of Sub-section (i) of Section 39 of the Tenancy Act provides that a tenant, having the right of occupancy, shall be liable to be ejected when a decree for an arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed against him and remained unsatisfied. Section 40 of the said Act provides for grounds for ejectment of tenant for a fixed term and Section 41 of the said Act provides for ejectment of tenant from year to year. Section 42 of the said Act further provides that a tenant shall not be ejected otherwise than in execution of a decree for ejectment, except in the following two cases, namely:-

18. Now the question for consideration is whether the non obstante clause contained in Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act debars the institution of a suit for ejectment of the tenant and whether it also debars the initiation of proceedings for ejectment of the tenant on the grounds mentioned in Section 43 of the Act, when a tenant failed to satisfy the decree passed against him on account of arrears of rent in a suit filed under Section 77 of the Act. Section 9 of the Land Tenures Act which provides for ejectment of the tenant in summary proceedings opens with the words "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no landowner shall be competent to eject a tenant except on the grounds" mentioned in that Section. In this Section, a tenant can be ejected on the grounds if he fails to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause. For getting a tenant ejected on this ground, the landlord has to establish that the tenant has failed to pay rent regularly and that too without sufficient cause. Simply because a tenant did not pay the rent no such ejectment application can be filed against him. The only remedy available to a landlord in that situations to file a suit for recovery for rent under Section 77 of the Tenancy Act and the Revenue Court can pass a decree against the tenant for payment of amount equivalent to the arrears of rent in spite of recording a finding whether there was sufficient cause or not. If a decree has been passed against a ten-ant for arrears of rent and the tenant did not satisfy the decree, then a right is provided to the landlord which is not a measure of ejectment of a tenant but a measure of punishment on the tenant for non-compliance of the decree. That is why, Section 42 of the Tenancy Act provides that no tenant shall be ejected otherwise than in execution of a decree for ejectment. But in certain cases, even though there is no decree of ejectment against a tenant, yet he can be ejected when he did not satisfy a decree for arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy passed against him. I am of the opinion that the ejectment of the tenant for non-compliance of a decree passed against him for arrears of rent in respect of his tenancy is not a measure of ejectment of a tenant but actually it is a measure of punishment to the tenant for non-compliance of the money decree passed against him by the Court of competent jurisdiction. This view of mine is being supported by the following observations made by this Court in Buti Shah case (supra):-

"In the first place, it is contended that, in the suit, relief was claimed under three heads, one, was a simple money decree; the second, asking for room to put the landowners in possession in place of the tenant; and the third, cashing on the default of the tenant in not making payment of the arrears of rent without sufficient cause. With regard to the first relief, it was countered that the decree with regard thereto had to be subjected to the fetters of Section 42 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent, as a measure of legal caution. Now, Section 42 of the said Act puts a restriction on ejectment in the matter of execution of a decree for arrears of rent. It provides that when a decree for an arrears of rent in respect of a tenancy has been passed against the tenant and remains unsatisfied, then a notice is required to be given to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent, failing which an order has to be passed ejecting the tenant therefore. This measure in strict sense is that of a punishment for non-compliance of the decree. In other words, it is not a measure of ejectment in the strict sense, the primary object being to recover arrears of rent. The analogous provision of law can well be found in Section 14-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, where the prominent motive of the landowner, approaching the officer is to recover arrears of rent. On that score, the fair stance adopted by Mr. Sarin, has well answered the objections of the learned counsel for the respondent, and, here that portion of the decree determining money liability does not at all affect the other portions of the decree which provide the reasons for the decree of ejectment."