Case: Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Punjab and Others

in kind, or give proof of having paid it or of the fact that he is not liable to pay the whole or part of the rent, or of the fact of the landlords refusal to receive the same or to give a receipt, within the period specified in the notice.Section 18 of the Act, insofar as it is relevant provides"(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract, a tenant of a land-owner other than a small land-owner-(i) who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years, or(ii) who has been restored to his tenancy under the provisions of this Act and whose periods of continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy immediately before ejectment and immediately after restoration of his tenancy together amounts to six years or more, or(iii) * shall be entitled to purchase from the land-owner the land so held by him but not included in the reserved area of the landowner, in the case of a tenant falling within clause (i) or clause (ii) at any time, and in the case of a tenant falling within clause (iii) within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act.By virtue of S. 14-A the land-owner may obtain possession of the land on the ground of non-payment of rent by a proceeding filed before the Assistant Collector, during the subsistence of the tenancy. If the tenant has remained in continuous occupation of the land for a minimum period of six years he is entitled to purchase the land under S. 18 of the Act.4. It was urged that since S. 18 commence with a non obstante clause, viz. "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract", if a proceeding in ejectment is lodged against the tenant which ultimately is allowed, the tenant cannot make a claim during the pendency of the proceeding to purchase the land. To hold otherwise, it was urged, would enable a tenant in default to defeat the claim in a suit in ejectment by commencing a proceeding for purchasing the land. We do not think that the expression "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract" whittles down the right of the tenant at the date when he makes a claim to purchase the land merely because the tenancy is liable to be terminated in a proceeding then pending for an order in ejectment under s. 14-A, at the instance of the land-owner. Under the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely because a proceeding in ejectment is instituted. The tenancy is determined only in the conditions, prescribed by s. 9 and in the manner provided by s. 14-A. If a tenant is in default in payment of rent the land-owner desiring to recover rent due by the tenant may apply in writing to the Assistant Collector who shall thereupon send a notice to the tenant to deposit the rent due or give proof of having paid it. If the tenant fails to pay the rent or give proof of payment, the Assistant Collector shall, after a summary inquiry, if he is of the view that the tenant has not paid or deposited-the rent, eject the tenant summarily and put the land-owner in possession of the land concerned. But so long as the Assistant Collector has not passed the order , ejecting the tenant the right of the tenant is not extinguished: he continues to remain a tenant and being a tenant he is entitled to exercise his right to purchase the land.Shadi was a tenant prior to the date of the institution by Bhajan Lal of the proceeding in ejectment and he continued to remain a tenant till an order was passed by the Assistant Collector on April 30, 1964. But before that date Shadi had exercised his right to purchase the land and that right to purchase the land would not be defeated merely because on a date subsequent thereto an order in ejectment was passed against him. Shadi, had therefore, at the date when he initiated proceeding under s. 18 right to purchase the land. By the subsequent order in ejectment made against him the statutory right of Shadi was not prejudicially affected.5. We agree with the observations of Mahajan, J., in Har Sarup and Anr. v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab ((1965) 44 Lah. Law Times 157) at p. 15 9:"But, at the time when section 18 application was filed, no order for eviction had been passed. Therefore, at that time, the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist. Mr. Daulta has not been able to point to me any provision of law which would make the eviction decree. operative from the date of the eviction application. The mere fact that the tenants had incurred the liability for eviction by reason of non-payment of rent would not put an end to the admitted relation- ship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This liability only puts an end to the aforesaid relationship when the eviction decree is passed. The eviction decree was passed long after the section 18 application. Therefore, the present petition is liable to, succeed only to have extent of section 18 application, that is, the tenants would be entitled to purchase the land. * * * *"6. But a slight modification needs to be made in the order. A proceeding for recovery of rent was commenced against Shadi. It is not clear whether the amount of compensation determined by the Assistant Collector as payable by Shadi for purchasing the land includes the rent in arrears. We declare that Shadi will be entitled to purchase the land on payment of the amount of compensation together with the amount of rent due by him. The Assistant Collector will pass appropriate order in that behalf and direct that payment be made in appropriate installments under s. 18 (4) (a).

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We do not think that the expression "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract" whittles down the right of the tenant at the date when he makes a claim to purchase the land merely because the tenancy is liable to be terminated in a proceeding then pending for an order in ejectment under s. 14-A, at the instance of the land-owner. Under the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely because a proceeding in ejectment is instituted. The tenancy is determined only in the conditions, prescribed by s. 9 and in the manner provided by s. 14-A. If a tenant is in default in payment of rent the land-owner desiring to recover rent due by the tenant may apply in writing to the Assistant Collector who shall thereupon send a notice to the tenant to deposit the rent due or give proof of having paid it. If the tenant fails to pay the rent or give proof of payment, the Assistant Collector shall, after a summary inquiry, if he is of the view that the tenant has not paid or deposited-the rent, eject the tenant summarily and put the land-owner in possession of the land concerned. But so long as the Assistant Collector has not passed the order , ejecting the tenant the right of the tenant is not extinguished: he continues to remain a tenant and being a tenant he is entitled to exercise his right to purchase the land.Shadi was a tenant prior to the date of the institution by Bhajan Lal of the proceeding in ejectment and he continued to remain a tenant till an order was passed by the Assistant Collector on April 30, 1964. But before that date Shadi had exercised his right to purchase the land and that right to purchase the land would not be defeated merely because on a date subsequent thereto an order in ejectment was passed against him. Shadi, had therefore, at the date when he initiated proceeding under s. 18 right to purchase the land. By the subsequent order in ejectment made against him the statutory right of Shadi was not prejudiciallyagree with the observations of Mahajan, J., in Har Sarup and Anr. v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab ((1965) 44 Lah. Law Times 157) at p. 15at the time when section 18 application was filed, no order for eviction had been passed. Therefore, at that time, the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist. Mr. Daulta has not been able to point to me any provision of law which would make the eviction decree. operative from the date of the eviction application. The mere fact that the tenants had incurred the liability for eviction by reason of non-payment of rent would not put an end to the admitted relation- ship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This liability only puts an end to the aforesaid relationship when the eviction decree is passed. The eviction decree was passed long after the section 18 application. Therefore, the present petition is liable to, succeed only to have extent of section 18 application, that is, the tenants would be entitled to purchase the land. * * *a slight modification needs to be made in the order. A proceeding for recovery of rent was commenced against Shadi. It is not clearwhether the amount of compensation determined by the Assistant Collector as payable by Shadi for purchasing the land includes the rent in arrears.We declare that Shadi will be entitled to purchase the land on payment of the amount of compensation together with the amount of rent due by him. The Assistant Collector will pass appropriate order in that behalf and direct that payment be made in appropriate installments under s. 18 (4) (a).