Case: Rikhi Ram &amp; Another Vs. Ram Kumar &amp; Others

The suit land is situated in the State of Haryana to which the provisions of the Act aforesaid are still applicable. The land belonged to Smt. Shanti, respondent No. 3. The appellants were the tenants of the disputed land under her. She sold the land to respondents 1 and 2 on the 21st June,1965. The land sold measured 176 kanals 4 marlas. The plaintiffs claimed the right ofin respect of the agricultural land in suit in accordance with clause Fourthly of Section15 (1) (a) of theAct The suit was resisted by theon several grounds. It was decreed by the trial Court on the 20th June, 1967 in respect of a portion of the land. measuring 157 kanals 2 marlas. The vendees appeal in the First Appellate Court failed on the 20th April, 1968. They succeeded, however, in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the basis of the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Das v. Chet Ram. (1971) 2 SCR 640   = (AIR 1971 SC 369  ). A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.2. We may state a few more facts before noting down the points urged on behalf of the appellants. In the appellants suit an order of injunction was made onrestraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from any portion of the suit land. But before the order of injunction was passed respondents 1 and 2 has filed an application before the Revenue Authorities under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953hereinafter called the Land Tenures Actfor ejectment of the appellants. An order of eviction was passed by the first authority onthat is to say, about a month prior to the passing of the decree by the trial Court. The appellants appeal from that order of the Assistant Collector was dismissed by the Collector onThe High Court took the view that since the appellants had ceased to be the tenants of the land prior to the passing of the decree ofby the trial Court they were no longer qualified to get such a decree.

Reasoning:
The reason suggested for making a distinction appears to be attractive but was not forceful enough to persuade us to take the view that the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Dass case (AIR,1971 SC 369)   requires reconsideration. The landlord could not determine the tenancy by his unilateral action under the Land Tenures Act. An order of eviction was necessary to be obtained under Section 9. The relationship of the landlord and the tenant ceases to exist between the parties after the passing of an order of ejectment against the tenant. Dispossession in execution of the order is not necessary for determination of the tenancy. In the instant case the appellants did not obtain an order of injunction in their suit to restrain the defendants from proceeding with their application for eviction. The order of injunction was confined to a restraint on dispossession. In a given case the landlord may be prevented from obtaining an order of ejectment against the tenant so that the latters right tothe sale made in favour of the former may not be defeated. We think two views of the law may be reasonably possible on the point at issue. It is, therefore, not expedient or advisable to send this case to a larger bench for reconsideration of the view expressed in Bhagwan Dass case nor is that case distinguishable.6. The second grievance of the appellant is to some extent justified but the submission does not stand final scrutiny. Respondents 1 and 2 had flied an application in the First Appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for admitting the order of eviction datedas an additional evidence in the case. That Court rejected that application. The proper course for the High Court, therefore, was to admit the order as an additional evidence if it thought it fit in law to do so. But then. the fact that there was an eviction order was not disputed before the High Court as it appears from its judgment. Of course, the High Court was not right when it said that on the date when the land was sold a decree for ejectment against the tenant had been passed and this decree had become final in appeal The decree was not passed on the date of sale but surely it was passed before the decree forwas made by the First court. In the circumstances of this case therefore we are not inclined to accept the second submission made on behalf of the appellants.7. The third point urged on behalf of the appellants is also not fit to succeed. A copy of the order of eviction passed by the Assistant Collector was incorporated in the Supplementary paper book and placed before us. The order shows that eviction was allowed from the entire land. The appellants were directed to be ejected forthwith from a portion and their actual eviction from the rest of the land was deferred till the allotment of the surplus land. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellants did not continue to be tenants of any portion of the land sold to respondents 1 and 2 on the date the decree forwas passed in their favour. Hence the decree was not sustainable in respect of any portion of the land.