Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

No issues are framed nor tried as a civil suit. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error to conclude that the earlier proceedings operate as res judicata.

It is then contended by Shri Sehgal, learned Senior counsel for the respondents that unless the appellants satisfy the requirements of Section 7A(2) read with Section 22, they are not entitled to claim proprietary rights to the land or the interest held from the landlord. Therefore, the application is not maintainable. Though this contention was not raised before any of the fora, since it trenches upon jurisdiction, we permitted the learned counsel to argue the case on this aspect of the matter. In this behalf, he sought to place reliance on the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Jaisi Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & Ors, [AIR 1972 Punjab and Haryana 72]. The question is: whether the appellants are entitled to avail of the benefit of Section 22, or ordered by the authorities under the Act? Section 2 (k) defines "tenant" to mean a tenant defined in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The exclusionary clause is not relevant for the purpose of this case; hence omitted. The "President's Act" has been defined under Section 2(1) to mean Patiala Punjab State Union Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953, President Act 8 of 1953, Section 7A deals with the right to additional grounds for termination of tenancy in certain cases which are in addition to grounds specified in Section 7. It is brought by way of Amendment Act 15 of 1956 which envisages as under:

(3) For the purpose of computing under sub-sections (1) and (2) the area of land under the personal cultivation of a tenant, any area of land owned by the tenant and under his personal cultivation shall be included."

Section 20 was brought by the same Amendment Act; it reads as under:

"20. Definition of tenant. - In this Chapter, the expression "tenant" means a tenant as defined in clause (k) of section 2, who is not liable to be ejected -

(a) under clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A; or

(b) under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 7-A:

Provided that this definition shall not apply to a tenant who is to be allotted by the State Government land under the proviso to sub-

section (1) of Section 7-A."

Section 20 defines "tenant". For the purpose of Chapter IV, the expression "tenant" means a tenant as defined in Clause (k) of Section 2. In other words, he must be a tenant defined under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The exclusionary clause contained in Section 2(k) has no application to the facts in this case. Such a tenant is not liable to be ejected (a) either under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A or (b) under clauses (a) and (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 7-A. Section 20 again excludes from the definition of tenant, for the purpose of Section 20, a tenant who is to be allotted by the State Government land under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 7-A. Such a tenant, by operation of Section 22 acquires right to purchase preparatory rights of the landlord, Sub- section (1) thereof postulates that subject to the other provisions contained in the Act, a tenant defined under Section 20, shall be entitled to acquire from his landowner, the proprietary rights in respect of the land held by him as a tenant in the manner and subject to the conditions hereinafter provided. The manner and the conditions have been enumerated in sub-section (2) thereof. Such a tenant shall make an application in writing to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner containing the particulars mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 22. Under clause (a), the tenant must specify the area and location of the land in respect of which the application was made; under clause (b), the name of the landowner from whom proprietary rights are to be acquired; under clause (c), he is required to specify other particulars prescribed in the rules, Sub-section (3) deals with and confers similar right to a sub-tenant to whom tenant had leased the land. By operation of sub-section (3) in respect of the land held by the subtenant, the right of the tenant to acquire proprietary rights stood extended. Sub-tenant also became entitled to purchase the proprietary right of the landowner as if he is a tenant under the landlord. This is the necessary corrollary of sub-section (3) of Section 22.

The contention raised is that a tenant who had remained in continuous possession of 12 years prior to the President's Act 8 of 1953 had come into force, namely, December 3, 1953, alone is entitled to avail the remedy of Section 22; otherwise he is liable to ejectment by the landlord under sub-section (2) of Section 7A. Therefore, the benefit to purchase the proprietary right give under Section 22 is not available to the respondent. We find no force in the contention. The object appears to be that a tenant immediately preceding the commencement of the President Act 8 of 1953 shall continue to remain for a period of 12 years either under one landlord or his predecessor so as to tag on the continuous 12 years' period. It does not appear to be that he should have remained in possession continuously for 12 years preceding the commencement of President Act 8 of 1953. What is required to be satisfied is that the tenant must be a "tenant" defined under Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 be in possession of the land in his character as a tenant prior to the President's Act 8 of 1953 had come into force. Such a tenant is not liable to be ejected under clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7A. He must have continuous possession for 12 years either under one landlord or predecessor in title or intended in the land leased out to the tenant to exercise the right under section 22. No doubt it is true that learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court had interpreted the section in the manner in which the learned counsel has placed construction on sub- section (2) of section 7-A, i.e., 12 years prior to President Act 8 of 1953 had come into force. But with due respect, we find that such interpretation would defeat the very object of conferment of proprietary right on the tenant in occupation of the land which was in his possession. The object of the Act is to confer proprietary title on the tenant in occupation of the agricultural land so that the tiller of the soil should get proprietary right over the land in his possession as tenant, despite the fact that he came into possession as a tenant at that the commencement of Act 8 of 1953. Three conditions to be satisfied, as stated already are - (1) he must be a tenant defined under the Punjab Tenancy Act; (2) he was in possession of the land as on December 3, 1953; and (3) he was a tenant under the landowner or processor in title. He must have continuous 12 years before exercising the right to purchase proprietory right. The interpretation put up by the learned Judges, with due respect, would defeat the object of the provision of the Act. Thus considered we hold that the appellants have satisfied the requirements mentioned in Section 22. They are not liable to ejectment either under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of Section 7A, as the case may be.