RFA No. 1394 of 1996 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1394 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.1.2011 Nahar Singh (deceased) through LRs and another … Appellants vs Mandir Nar Singh Puri and another …. Respondents Present : Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Amit Jain and Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocates, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal, J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award of the learned court below pertaining to a dispute regarding apportionment of compensation. Briefly the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 21.3.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), sought to acquire the land situated within the revenue estate of Hisar, Hadbast No. 146, for development and utilization thereof as residential sectors at Hisar. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ‘the Collector’) vide his award dated 16.3.1994 divided the land into three categories and assessed the fair market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre for category-A, ` 2,50,000/- per acre for category-B and ` 2,00,000/- per acre for category-C. On reference under Section 30 of the Act, the learned court below vide impugned award dated 8.5.1996 accepted the claim of respondent no. 1 and rejected the claim of the appellants by observing that the ejectment order had put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Dissatisfied with the impugned award, the tenants are before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants-tenants raised two fold argument, namely, that on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 21.3.1991, they were very much tenants on the acquired RFA No. 1394 of 1996 (2) land for the last more than 40 years on payment of fixed lagan. In the ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlord, this fact is admitted. The aforesaid application was filed on 28.10.1988 and the order of ejectment was passed on 27.4.1994 much after even the announcement of award by the Collector. The rights of the parties with regard to tenancy are deemed to have been determined on the date of passing of the order by the Collector when he directed eviction of the appellants. The relevant date would be the date of passing of the order and not the date of filing of the application. The order having been passed on 27.4.1994 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act having been issued on 21.3.1991 and even the award of the Collector having been announced on 16.3.1994, the appellants shall be deemed to be tenants under the landowner on the date of acquisition of the land, hence, entitled to apportionment of compensation. In support of his contention to the effect that the relationship of landlord and a tenant comes to an end after passing of the order of eviction, learned counsel for the appellants-tenants placed reliance upon Rikhi Ram and another vs Ram Kumar and others 1975 PLJ 331, Pishori Lal and others vs Hukama alias Hukaman 1972 PLJ 4, and Hira Singh and others vs Haria and others 1973 PLJ 760. Learned counsel for the appellants-tenants further submitted that once the appellants are established as tenants on the acquired land on the date of acquisition, considering their tenancy on the land for the last more than 40 years, they would be entitled to apportionment of compensation. This court in RFA No. 396 of 1994 titled as Balwant Singh vs Arjan and others decided on 27.4.2009, has already determined this issue with regard to other tenants on the land owned by the respondent in the present case, wherein the landowner and the tenants have been held entitled to share the compensation at the ratio of 2/3rd : 1/3rd, respectively. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landowner placing reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Rameshwar vs Jot Ram 1975 PLJ 454 submitted that rights of the parties are to be determined on the date of filing of the application and not when the order is passed. It may take some time when a court or an authority passes an order. However, that will relate back to the filing of the application. In the present RFA No. 1394 of 1996 (3) case, the stand of the appellants was rejected by the Collector. The order was upheld in the appeal and revision as well. A finding has been recorded by the Commissioner that the ejectment shall be deemed to be on the date of filing of the application, the order having attained finality, the appellants should not be permitted to raise that argument. However, learned counsel for the landowner could not deny that in Balwant Singh’s case (supra), this court had determined the issue regarding apportionment of compensation with regard to other tenants on the acquired land owned by the respondent herein. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Two issues which require consideration in the present appeal are as to on which date the relationship of landlord and tenant is deemed to be terminated and further in which proportion the landlord and the tenants are to share the amount of compensation? From the facts as have been noticed by the learned court below, it is evident that the appellants claimed before the court below that they were tenants under the landlord for the last more than 40 years on payment of fixed lagan. They made the barren land, cultivable. In this process, they had acquired occupancy rights. A petition for eviction was filed by the landlord on 28.10.1988 alleging default of payment of rent from the year 1986 onwards. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the appellants filed application seeking occupancy rights. However, before final determination of rights of the parties, the land in question was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 21.3.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Act. The order of ejectment against the appellants was passed by the Collector on 27.4.1994 which was upheld in appeal and revision. Learned counsel for the appellants raised argument to the effect that the tenancy shall be deemed to have been terminated on the date of the passing of the order by the Collector i.e. after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The appellants being tenants on the land on the date of acquisition, are entitled to share compensation with the landowner. Whereas the stand of the learned counsel for the landowner was that the order of eviction, even if passed later on, will relate back to the date of filing of the application. In the present case, the application having been RFA No. 1394 of 1996 (4) filed much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the appellants being not tenants on the crucial date, are not entitled to any apportionment. The issue regarding the relevant date on which the relationship of tenant and landlord comes to an end was considered by a Division Bench of this court in Pishori Lal’s case (supra), wherein it was held that relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end on the date of passing of the order-decree by an authority or the court. Subsequent thereto the possession of the tenant would be illegal even if the tenant does not surrender the same to the landlord. The relevant paras thereof are extracted below:- “14. This is otherwise now well settled that the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end as soon as a decree for ejectment is passed. This was so held by a Bench of this Court in Banarsi Dass v. Devi Dayal and others, 1967 P.L.R. 417. That was a case under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. There the counsel for the tenant put up the plea that a mere termination of tenancy is of no consequence and that the tenant will continue to be a tenant so long as he does not surrender possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord. This contention was repelled and it was observed by the Bench as follows:- “This contention loses sight of the fact that there is a valid decree of eviction against the tenant. According to our view, once a decree is passed under section 13 of the Act, there is an end of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the tenant, who is awaiting eviction in execution, is merely in possession without authority of law. He has no right, after the eviction decree, to continue in possession; and it cannot be said in these circumstances that his possession is that of a tenant. The eviction RFA No. 1394 of 1996 (5) decree completely puts an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant.” 15. Similar view was taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Umrao v. Nemi and others, 1967 P.L.R. 887. That was a case of ejectment of a tenant from agricultural land, under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. A decree for ejectment had been obtained by the landlord before the date on which the tenant put in an application under section 18 for purchase of the land under his tenancy. The learned Judge held as under:- “......The relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end when a decree for ejectment is passed against the tenant, it is not necessary that the decree should have been actually executed and the tenant dispossessed from the said land. Where an order for ejectment of the tenant is made before an application under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is made by the tenant, there being no relationship of landlord and tenant on the date of application, the application is liable to be rejected.” Reference was also made to section 47 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, according to which execution of an order of ejectment cannot be done earlier than 1st May in a particular year. Referring to this, the learned Judge went on to observe as follows:- “....... section 47 of the Punjab Tenancy Act deals with the execution of the decree or order for the ejectment of a tenant and not with the determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It may be true that the decree for ejectment cannot be executed RFA No. 1394 of 1996 (6) earlier than 1st May, but that does not mean that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not come to an end between the parties on the day when decree for ejectment of the tenant was passed.” (emphasis supplied). Similar view was expressed by this court in Hira Singh’s case (supra), wherein it has been held that when a decree has been passed against a tenant, his status as a tenant comes to an end and from that day he will be considered to be trespasser. In Rikhi Ram’s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court opined that the landlord could not terminate tenancy by his unilateral act under the Land Tenures Act. An order of eviction was necessary to be obtained under Section 9 of the Act. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ceases to exist after the passing of an order of ejectment against the tenant. Dispossession in execution of the order is not necessary for determination of tenancy. From the enunciation of law in the aforesaid judgments, it can very well be opined that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not come to an end by unilateral act of the landlord when he files application for eviction rather the crucial date would be the date on which eviction order is passed, which in the present case, admittedly was passed after the land had already been acquired. The judgment in Rameshwar’s case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the landowner is distinguishable on facts. It was a case in which the rights of the tenant to purchase land were under consideration. During the course of appellate proceedings a plea was sought to be raised that the big landlord having expired during the pendency of the appeal, which is continuation of proceedings, on his death, his heirs became entitled to shares in the property. In the process of fragmentation, they became small landowners. It is in these circumstances that Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined that the right of the person in occupation of the land to purchase the same from a big land owner is to be considered on the date of filing of the application. Subsequent events such as death of such big land owner during the pendency of the appeal cannot be taken into consideration. The facts of the case in hand and the aforesaid case are quite different. RFA No. 1394 of 1996 (7) No judgment was cited by learned counsel for the respondent taking a view contrary what have been relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants. In view of my aforesaid discussion, it can safely be opined that relationship of a tenant and landlord comes to an end on the date of passing of eviction order and not merely by any unilateral act of the landlord, may be on filing of an application for eviction. Once the hurdle regarding tenancy is over, as far as the issue regarding apportionment of compensation between the parties is concerned, the same is not res integra. This court has considered an identical issue between the respondent landowner and other tenants on the land acquired vide same notification. This court in Balwant Singh's case (supra), had upheld the award of the learned court below directing apportionment of compensation between the tenant and the landlord in the ratio of 1/3rd : 2/3rd, respectively. Following the principle laid down in Balwant Singh's case (supra), it is held that the appellants shall be entitled to share 1/3rd amount of compensation for the land in their possession and the respondent-landlord shall be entitled to get 2/3rd share. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 17.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge (Refer to Reporter)