Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) Cheta v. Baija, AIR 1927 Lah 452 (FB).
(2) Parmanand v. Rakha, AIR 1952 Punj 94; and (3) Kidar Nath v. Dr. Prema Nand, AIR 1952 Punj 185.

9. The first of the aforesaid cases was one for recovery of possession of agricultural land on the allegations that the plaintiffs and their ancestors had held the said land as occupancy tenants for more than 100 years, that acting under the provisions of Sections 42(b), 43 and 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act the defendant had a notice of ejectment issued to the plaintiffs by the revenue officer; that the plaintiffs had under Section 45 (6) of the said Act instituted a suit contesting their liability to be ejected which was decided against them by the revenue Courts and their ejectment was ordered and in execution of the decree they had been ejected. The case was taken up to the High Court and the following question was referred for decision to the Full Bench :

10. With great respect to the learned Judge, it is submitted that the purported gist did not bring out the full import of the aforesaid paragraph. In a subsequent portion of the judgment agreement was expressed with the view that as soon as a person's 'right to possess' as a tenant has been decided against him by a revenue Court and he is dispossessed in execution of a decree for ejectment he ceases to be a tenant and the aforesaid view which is based on the cases of Nihal Singh v. Kaman, 1888 Pun Re 9 (FB), Kharku v. Dittu, 1893 Pun Re 70 and Parman v. Lhassu, 51 Ind Cas 443 : (AIR 1919 Lah 297 (2)), in my opinion, represents the correct legal position. The determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant depends, to a large extent, upon ejectment in pursuance of a decree for ejectment.