Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to canvass that a tenant unless he is ejected in execution of a decree does not cease to be a tenant as the Act is a welfare legislation enacted with a view to reform the law relating to tenancies and the same should have been construed in favour of the tenant. He has drawn my attention to several provisions of the Act.

7. "Tenant" has been defined in Sub-section (17) of Section 2 of the Act as "a person who holds land under another person, and is. or but for a contract to the contrary would be liable to pay rent for that land to that other person. Hence according to this definition, a tenant is a person who not only holds the land, but has also a right to hold the land. The definition of "tenant" as given in Section 4 (5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act is exactly the same. From this what I can conclude is that as soon as a decree for ejectment is passed he ceases to have a right to hold the land as the decree declares the termination of the tenancy.

9. He has also referred to the other sections about relinquishment, abandonment, procedure of ejectment, etc., to stress the point that in these sections the word "tenant" has been used and the purport of his argument is that in all these sections instead of tenant there should have been used, "a person" if it were the intention of the legislature not to protect the right of the tenant.

10. Section 55 says that "a tenant shall not be ejected otherwise than in execution of a decree for ejectment, except in the following cases, namely--

From this section it is sought to be inferred that a tenant remains a tenant even after the passing of a decree of ejectment and his tenancy is terminated only after he is ejected in execution of the decree. Further that if the tenant pays the arrears for which a decree has been passed then the tenant is not liable to ejectment and the tenancy is not determined. According to this section . a tenant cannot be ejected except when there is a decree for ejectment or in the following cases when the decree for an arrear of rent in respect of his tenancy has been passed against him and remains unsatisfied and then in that case a decree for ejectment has got to be secured. But that does not mean that the tenancy subsists even after the decree for ejectment has been passed. The relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end. the moment it is declared that he is liable to ejectment and his actual continuance in possession of the land till his physical dispossession does not mean that he is a tenant for all intents and purposes. The execution of the ejectment decree is merely a step to give effect to that determination that the tenancy had ceased. It does not mean that till the tenant is actually or physically dispossessed from the land he continues to be a tenant irrespective of the fact that the decree for ejectment has been passed by the Revenue Court. This section is quite similar to Section 42 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

In the light of the aforesaid authorities which though under different provisions of different acts, it is abundantly clear that the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end the moment a decree for ejectment is passed by the Court and the execution of the decree is only to give effect to the determination which has already been made by the Court. If after the decree the tenant continues in possession then under Section 30 of the Act, he is liable to pay compensation for use or occupation of the land at the rate of the rent as was payable in the preceding agricultural year.