Case: Jaimal &amp; Anr Vs. Financial Commissioner, Punjab &amp; Ors

money.(6) If there is no such charge as aforesaid the Assistant Collector shall, subject to any direction which he may receive from any court, "pay the purchase money to the landowner.(7) If there is such a charge, the Assistant Collector shall, subject as aforesaid, apply in the discharge of the mortgage debt so much of the purchase money as is required for that purpose and pay the balance, if any, to the landowner, or retain the purchase money pending the decision of a civil Court as to the person or persons entitled thereto."4. "Land-owner" is defined in S. 2 (l) of the Act to mean "a person defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 (Act XVII of 1887), and shall include an "allottee" and "lessee" as defined in clauses (b) and (c) respectively, of Section 2 of the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 949 (Act XXXW of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the Resettlement Act." The explanation to S. 2 (1) reads:"In respect of land mortgaged with possession, the mortgagee shall be deemed to be the land-owner."5. The word tenant is defined in S. 2 (6) as follows:"Tenant" has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1887) and includes a subtenant and self-cultivating lessee, but shall not include a present holder, as defined in Section 2 of the Resettlement Act."6. In the Land Revenue Act, 1887, land-owner" has been defined as follows, in S. 3 (2):"land-owner " does not include a tenant or an assignee of land revenue, but does include a person to whom a holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in farm, under this Act for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear and every other person not hereinbefore in this clause mentioned who is in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof, or in the enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate."7. It will be noticed that before a person can apply under S. 18 of the Act he must be a tenant of a land-owner other than a small land-owner. there is no dispute that the land-owner in this case is not a small land-owner. The only question is whether the appellants, who were sub-tenants, can said to be tenants of the land-owner within the meaning of S. 18. If we look at the definitions of the words "tenant" and "land-owne", it seems clear that a tenant of a tenant cannot be a tenant of the land-owner, because the definition expressly says that a land-owner does not include a tenant. Apart from this, the first proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 18 makes it clear that a tenant who has sublet the land or a portion, as the case may be, to any other person during the period of his continuous occupation is disabled from applying under Section 18 unless during the period of his continuous occupation the tenant was suffering from legal disability or physical infirmity or if a woman was a widow or was unmarried.In other words, for example, a tenant who is a widow would be entitled to apply under S. 18 even though she had sublet the land which she desired to purchase. No satisfactory answer was given by the learned counsel for the appellants as to what would happen if both the subtenant and the widow applied to purchase.8. Both sides have relied on the scheme of the Act, but it seems to us that the scheme of the Act and the objects underlying the Act do not assist us in determining this question. It is well known that the main objects of the Act were to provide security to the tenants, settle tenants on land declared surplus and fix a ceiling on the total holding of land-owners an tenants. It is also well known that it was a measure of agrarian reform. But these matters do not assist us in interpreting S. 18.9. The answer must depend upon the language of S. 18, fairly construed. If it was intended that a sub-tenant should be entitled to purchase under S.18, we would have expected some provision in the Act to solve the difficulties which would arise if there was competition between the tenant and the subtenant.10. There was some debate before us whether a tenant who has sublet would be treated to be in continuous occupation of the land during the period of sub-tenancy within S. 18 (1) (i), but we think that the proviso to S. 18 (1) proceeds on the basis that the tenant is in continuous occupation even though he has sublet the land.11. It will again be noticed that under sub-s. (4) (b) of S. 18 on the purchase price being deposited, the tenant becomes owner of the land. If the contention of the appellant was correct, the sub-tenant would become the owner under sub-s. (4) (b); but what will happen to the rights of the tenant? No satisfactory answer was given to this question.12. Again it will further be noticed that sub-s. (5) of S. 18 talks of the mortgage of the land but it does not speak of the mortgage of the rights of a tenant.13. It seems to us that the High Court was right in holding that the legislature did not intend to confer any rights under S. 18 on the sub-tenant. The fact that by sub-letting the tenant is also not able to apply under S. 18 by virtue of the first proviso to sub-s. (1) cannot confer rights on the sub-tenant because he must himself be a tenant of land-owner within S. 18 of the Act.14. Mr. Chagla says that it is a very hard case for the appellants have been in possession for over 30 years, but if it is a hard case it is for the legislature to intervene and provide for such hard cases.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]8. Both sides have relied on the scheme of the Act, but it seems to us that the scheme of the Act and the objects underlying the Act do not assist us in determining this question. It is well known that the main objects of the Act were to provide security to the tenants, settle tenants on land declared surplus and fix a ceiling on the total holding of land-owners an tenants. It is also well known that it was a measure of agrarian reform. But these matters do not assist us in interpreting S. 18.9. The answer must depend upon the language of S. 18, fairly construed. If it was intended that a sub-tenant should be entitled to purchase under S.18, we would have expected some provision in the Act to solve the difficulties which would arise if there was competition between the tenant and the subtenant.10. There was some debate before us whether a tenant who has sublet would be treated to be in continuous occupation of the land during the period of sub-tenancy within S. 18 (1) (i), but we think that the proviso to S. 18 (1) proceeds on the basis that the tenant is in continuous occupation even though he has sublet the land.11. It will again be noticed that under sub-s. (4) (b) of S. 18 on the purchase price being deposited, the tenant becomes owner of the land. If the contention of the appellant was correct, the sub-tenant would become the owner under sub-s. (4) (b); but what will happen to the rights of the tenant? No satisfactory answer was given to this question.12. Again it will further be noticed that sub-s. (5) of S. 18 talks of the mortgage of the land but it does not speak of the mortgage of the rights of a tenant.13. It seems to us that the High Court was right in holding that the legislature did not intend to confer any rights under S. 18 on the sub-tenant. The fact that by sub-letting the tenant is also not able to apply under S. 18 by virtue of the first proviso to sub-s. (1) cannot confer rights on the sub-tenant because he must himself be a tenant of land-owner within S. 18 of the Act.14. Mr. Chagla says that it is a very hard case for the appellants have been in possession for over 30 years, but if it is a hard case it is for the legislature to intervene and provide for such hard cases.