RFA No. 396 of 1994 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: April 27, 2009 (O&M) (1) R.F.A. No. 396 of 1994 (O&M) Balwant Singh .. Appellant v. Arjan and others .. Respondents. (2) R.F.A. No. 228 of 1994 (O&M) Balwant Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. L. N. Verma, Advocate for private respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a set of above mentioned two appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 396 of 1994. The dispute in the present case is with regard to apportionment of compensation between the land owner and the tenants. Vide impugned award, the learned court below has directed the payment of 1/3rd of the amount of compensation to the tenants and 2/3rd to the land owner. Learned counsel for the land owner submitted that though in terms of the revenue record, respondents No. 1 to 4 have been shown to be in possession of the land as tenants on payment of 1/3rd Batai, as there was no payment of Batai since 1981, the tenants forfeited their right to share the compensation on account of acquisition of land. Non-payment of rent by a tenant extinguishes their claim of being a tenant. Once there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the claim of respondents No. 1 to 4 was not maintainable at all. Reliance was placed upon Rulhu Ram v. Than Singh and others, (1966) 68 PLR 866; Piare Lal v. Col. His Highness Raja Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur , 1979 PLJ RFA No. 396 of 1994 [ 2] 474 and Mani Ram and others v. Haryana State and others, 1990 LACC 481. On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenants submitted that the revenue record produced by them clearly shows that they are tenants on the property on payment of 1/3rd Batai. There is presumption of truth with the revenue record. Though the rent settled was being paid, however, still in case any payment was over due from them, the land owner had right to claim the same by filing a petition/suit before the competent authority. He could even seek eviction of the tenants on that ground. However, in such eviction proceedings after the assessment of the rent due, the tenant is always granted opportunity to clear the arrears. Still further, it was submitted that till such time the tenancy is terminated by operation of law or order of competent court, merely on account of non-payment of rent, relationship is not terminated. They could not be physically dispossessed from the land till such time they were re-settled on any other surplus land. He further submitted that though considering the fact that respondents No. 1 to 4 are shown to be tenants on the property since long were entitled to at least 50% of the compensation for the acquired land, but still as no appeal/cross objections have been filed by them, whatever has been awarded by the learned court below, does not call for any interference. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant is concerned, the same is not in dispute. What was sought to be claimed was that on account of the tenants having failed to pay the arrears of Batai since December, 1981, they had forfeited their tenancy rights and extinguished the right to share compensation on account of acquisition of land. Judgment of Rulhu Ram's case (supra) will not come to the rescue of the land owner for the reason that in the present case, the fact is not that from the very beginning, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as nothing was paid by the tenants. Rather, the case is that from December, 1981 onwards, the tenants did not pay the Batai. On account of non-payment of Batai or rent settled, the land owner had certain rights either to claim the Batai by filing appropriate petition/suit before the competent authority or get the tenant evicted. However, that will not terminate the relationship of land owner and tenant automatically. Accordingly, in my view, the contention raised by learned counsel for the land owner that relationship of landlord and tenants had come to an end cannot be sustained. Now coming to the issue of sharing of compensation between the land owner and the tenants, the learned court below had directed apportionment in RFA No. 396 of 1994 [ 3] the ratio of 2/3rd : 1/3rd between the land owner and tenants respectively. Keeping in view the judgments cited by the tenants, the same cannot be said to be unreasonable. Accordingly, no error can be found in the impugned award of the learned court below. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge April 27 ,2009 mk