Civil Writ Petition No.3302 of 1983 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3302 of 1983 Date of Decision 31.10.2011 Bhoop Singh and others ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS Bagtu Ram through L.Rs. ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Arihant Jain, Mr.Arun Jain and Mr.Rishav Jain, Advocates, for the L.Rs. of respondent No.4. ***** K.KANNAN, J(ORAL): 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the competent authorities culminating in the order of the Financial Commissioner dealing with the petition for eviction filed under Section 8 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. 2. The contention of the petitioner-landlord was that the lease had been subsequent to the date of the Act and is entitled to secure an eviction on completion of three years from the commencement of tenancy. The respondent-tenant contended that he had been in continuous possession prior to the commencement of the Act on 13.12.1956. Although, the Assistant Collector, Jind, upheld the contention of the landlord and passed the eviction order, in the appeal filed by the tenant, the order of the Assistant Collector was set aside on a specific finding that the tenant Makar had been shown in possession in the jamabandi for the year 1951 as well as Civil Writ Petition No.3302 of 1983 2 for the year 1955-56. However, he also observed that in between some other persons have also shown to have been in possession but there was still a lingering doubt about particular khasra numbers which had been allotted in the consolidation proceedings in lieu of properties in Khasra No.630. The petition was, therefore, disposed of with a direction for remand in relation to the property in survey No.630 which the collector had observed that the tenant had failed to prove that he was in possession of. The appeal of the tenant was allowed but the tenant was directed to be evicted from the land allotted in lieu of khasra No.630 and not from the other lands. The Collector had observed that to decide what was the number allotted in lieu of the old numbers during consolidation, the case was being remitted to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jind. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-landlord would find fault with the order of the collector and the subsequent orders on the ground that the burden of proof was on the tenant to establish his continuous possession for twelve years under Section 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (13 of 1955). The issue of number of years of possession would obtain relevance if a petition is filed under Section 7 on the grounds mentioned in the Act. This petition has been filed under Section 8 of the Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 on an averment that the tenancy had commenced in the year 1963. The tenant had produced documentary evidence to show, as we have seen above, that he was in possession of the property in the year 1951 as well as in 1955, as the jamabandi entries showed. Consequently, if the petition is filed under Section 8 of the Act and the contention is that a tenant cannot hold the property for a period in excess of three years, then such an action ought to Civil Writ Petition No.3302 of 1983 3 fail if the tenant is able to show his possession prior to the Act. It is another way of non-suiting a landlord by saying that Section 8 of the Act will not apply if the tenancy had commenced before the Act. This assumes significance for the issue whether a tenant could claim his right not to be evicted arises only in a petition filed under Section 7, when the tenant is required to prove his possession twelve years prior to the Act. It is nobody's case that the tenant has fallen into arrears and that the ground as mentioned in Section 7 of the Act has been made out. On the other hand, the petition is filed under Section 8 of the Act and it could not have been survived for consideration if the possession is commenced before the Act. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on two Division Bench rulings of this Court to contend that the tenant ought to be evicted if he could not prove twelve years of possession. In Devi Chand versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others 1971 PLJ 201, the Division Bench held that the object of Section 8 is that it permits a landlord holding lands within permissible area to induct a tenant and not to be deterred by the provisions of the Act whether or not take a tenant to help him in cultivation within his permissible area. Section 7-A of the Act enables a landowner to get rid of tenants on his permissible area and such land beyond the permissible area will with the State as held in Jaisi Ram versus The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others 1971 PLJ 117. The Division Division was holding that acquisition of proprietary rights of a tenant would be possible under Sections 7-A, 20 and 22 of the Act only if 12 years continuous possession is shown in a particular piece of land and a tenant occupying different parcels though of the same area cannot acquire propriety rights. I am not now considering a case whether a Civil Writ Petition No.3302 of 1983 4 tenant has obtained propriety rights in relation to the property and what the failure of such proof could entail. I am, on the other hand, considering the tenantability of an action of the eviction initiated under Section 8 of the Act, rooted to a pleading that the tenancy commenced in the year 1963. If the landlord fails to establish the same, the issue of eviction under Section 8 of the Act and the insistance that he has a right to obtain such eviction after the completion of three years cannot arise. A tenant cannot be evicted otherwise on the grounds mentioned under Section 7 of the Act for any tenancy that had commenced before the Act. The orders of the Collector and the orders passed subsequently conforms the law and would require no interference. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. The orders are confirmed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 31.10.2011 mamta-II