IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 Date of Decision : July 07, 2008 Bhundu Ram .....Appellant Versus Amar Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parvesh Saini, Advocate Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. The defendant is before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act against the judgment dated 23.4.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby his appeal against the judgment dated 11.3.1986 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, was dismissed. In his suit, the plaintiff/respondent pleaded that he was owner of the land measuring 75 kanals 10 marlas and the defendant/appellant was in unauthorised possession of the same. R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -2- Earlier to the plaintiff, one Man Kauri was the owner of the suit property. She leased out the suit property to the defendant for a period of one year, i.e. from Kharif 1981 to Rabi 1982. Vide decree dated 15.5.1982 passed against Man Kauri, the plaintiff was declared owner of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the lease of the defendant was never extended. The defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction against Man Kauri and the plaintiff and had obtained temporary injunction and on its basis he continued to be in possession without any authority. The land was given on lease to the defendant by Man Kauri at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre. Since the defendant had no right to remain in possession, accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for possession and mesne profits. While opposing the suit, the defendant claimed that Man Kauri had agreed that he could continue cultivating the suit land at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre and, therefore, he was continuing in possession of the suit land as a lessee. The change of ownership from Man Kauri to the plaintiff would not change the status of the defendant and therefore, he was not in unauthorised possession of the suit land. He also stated that he was ready to pay Chakota money at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre but the same was not accepted by Man Kauri and the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -3- the following issues :- 1. Whether the defendant is tenant over the land under the plaintiff ? OPD. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claim for use and occupation of the property in dispute by the defendant ? If so to what amount ? OPP. 3. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is beyond limitation? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice? OPD. 8. Whether the less court fee has been affixed on the plaint ? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and whether he is entitled to special costs ? If so, how much ? OPD. 10. Relief. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -4- trial Court, vide judgment dated 11.3.1986, held that the defendant failed to prove that he was a tenant over the suit land under the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit for possession was decreed and the plaintiff was also granted decree for mesne profits amounting to Rs. 4,500/- for the period from Kharif 1982 to Rabi 1983 with costs and future interest. The findings arrived at by the trial Court were upheld by Additional District Judge-II, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 23.4.1987 in the appeal filed by the defendant. It is the case of the defendant-appellant himself that he had taken the suit land on lease from Man Kauri for a period of one year only. This lease came to an end with the crop of Rabi 1982. Therefore, the possession of the defendant-appellant over the suit property became unauthorised. He ceased to be the tenant. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that even if the period of lease had expired and the defendant continued to remain in possession of the suit land, his status continued to be that of the tenant and, therefore, he could not be ejected except in accordance with law. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant referred to Section 2(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, wherein 'tenant' has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and includes a sub tenant and self cultivating lessee but did not include the present holder. Under Section 4(5) of the Punjab R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -5- Tenancy Act, the 'tenant' is defined as under :- “tenant” means a person who holds land under another person, and is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other person; but it does not include - (a) an inferior landowner, or (b) a mortgagee of the rights of a landowner, or (c) a person to whom a holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in farm, under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear, or (d) a person who takes from the Government a lease of unoccupied land for the purpose of subletting it.” Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to Rameshwar v. Shri Sheo Chand and others, 1981 PLJ 362 and Ram Lal v. Darshan Lal and others, 2008(1) PLR 361, wherein it was held that on the expiry of period of tenancy for fixed period, the tenant continues to remain a tenant and the tenancy could be terminated only when order of ejectment is passed against tenant on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Therefore, the best course for the landlord was to seek ejectment of the R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -6- defendant-appellant by moving an application under Section 14 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and not by way of a suit for possession. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the evidence led by the defendant was not in accordance with the pleadings as set out in the written statement. In para 3 of his written statement, the defendant took up the plea that after the expiry of the lease period Man Kauri had agreed to allow the defendant to continue in possession of the property as tenant Gair Maurusi, therefore, it amounted to creation of a new tenancy after the expiry of the lease deed. This plea taken up by the defendant was not supported by any documentary or oral evidence. Therefore, any evidence, which was led beyond the pleadings of the parties could not be looked into. Reference in this regard may be made to Vinod Kumar v. Jagminder Das and another, 1970 PLJ 362 and Sain Dass v. Lachhman Das alias Lachhu Ram etc., 1981 CLJ (Civil) 129. Even otherwise protection under the Act is granted to a tenant for the period for which the tenancy subsisted and if the tenancy was for a fixed period and it had expired, then in that situation Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act did not come to the aid of the tenant. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Mandir Jhoke Hari Har and others v. Shrimati Ajit Kaur and others, 1977 PLJ 315, wherein it was held that a person admitted to a tenancy did not continue to be a tenant for ever under the R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -7- provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act or the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. He remained a tenant so long as the tenancy subsisted. After the expiry of the fixed period of tenancy, Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act would not come to his rescue. However, that did not mean that the landlord was entitled to take possession of the land forcibly on the expiry of the lease. He could evict him in accordance with law. Once the defendant took up the plea that Man Kauri had leased out the suit property to him for a fixed period and the same had expired but Man Kauri had allowed him to continue in possession as tenant Gair Maurusi, he would be required to produce some material in that regard. In that situation he could not be considered as a tenant but considered as one continuing to be in possession with the consent of the landlord. Instead of producing any document whereby his tenancy was extended, the defendant has taken up the plea that once he was inducted as a tenant, then for all times to come, he could be evicted by the landlord only by seeking his ejectment on the grounds specified in Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. This plea had not been taken up by him in his written statement. Therefore, he cannot be heard saying that he could not be ejected by the landlord/plaintiff except by moving an application by him under Section 14 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -8- Even if the defendant/appellant is allowed to argue that once he was inducted as a tenant, may be for a fixed period of time, he could be ejected from the suit property by the landlord by moving an application under Section 14 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the law is well settled that no such protection is available to a person from eviction after the expiry of the tenancy. In the case of Mandir Jhoke Hari Har (supra), it was specifically held that a person admitted to a tenancy remained a tenant so long as the tenancy subsisted. Once the period of tenancy expired, he ceased to be a tenant. He could, thereafter, be ejected by the landlord although in that situation, the landlord was to took recourse to law, i.e. to file a suit for possession, as had been done in the present case. In the case of Rameshwar (supra), a single Bench of this Court relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal v. State of Punjab and others, 1970 PLJ 812, wherein the contention of the landlord that the tenancy had come to an end as soon as tenant became liable for ejectment for non-payment of the arrears of rent was rejected by observing that the tenancy after the enforcement of the Act could be determined only in the conditions prescribed by Section 9 and in the manner provided by Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures and so long the Assistant Collector did not pass the order ejecting the tenant, the right of the tenant was not extinguished and he R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 -9- continued to remain a tenant. In the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) the tenant was pleading for statutory right of purchase during the ejectment proceedings launched against him by the land owner. The ejectment was sought by the land owner on the ground of non-payment of the rent. On the other hand, in the present case, the plaintiff had sought ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the period of tenancy had already expired and, therefore, defendant was in unauthorised possession of the suit property. In view of the above, no case is made out for interfering in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. None of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant arises for consideration. The appeal is without any merit and, is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 07, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO