Case: Bhagwan Das (Dead) By Lrs. &amp; Ors Vs. Chet Ram

1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.2. In December 1966 Labhu Ram who was the owner of the land in dispute sold the same in two lots to Bhagwan Das (deceased) now represented by his legal representatives and others. The lands mentioned in cls. (a) and (b) of the title of the plaint in the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen were sold for Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 1,000/respectively. The respondent Chet Ram was a tenant-at will of the lands covered by the sales. Bhagwan Das and others filed a suit against Chet Ram in the revenue Court for ejectment under Section 14-A (i) read with Section 9 (1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 which was decreed on July 31, 1967. On August 31, 1968, Bhagwan Das and others entered into possession of the aforesaid lands after evicting Chet Ram by virtue of the decree for eviction obtained against him.3. After his eviction Chet Ram the present respondent filed a suit for possession of the lands which were the subject matter of sale by pre-emption under Section 15 (1) (a) Fourthly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, (Punjab Act 1 of 1913), hereinafter called the Act. By that provision the right of pre-emption has been declared to vest in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor the land or property sold or a part thereof. It was admitted before the trial Court that the respondent was a tenant before July 31, 1967 and that before the institution of the pre-emption suit his tenancy had been determined. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, in view of certain decisions of the Punjab High Court, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The Judgment was upheld in second appeal by the High Court.

Reasoning:
8. In the present case not only a decree for eviction was passed against the respondent but he was also actually dispossessed from the land in his tenancy pursuant to the decree before he filed the pre-emption suit. We are altogether unable to see how he could be granted a decree in such a suit.9. An attempt was made by means of C. M. P. No. 4634 of 1970 on behalf of the respondents to reopen the question of the area in respect of which the decree for eviction had been passed on July 31, 1967. It was maintained that it related only to certain Khasra Numbers which were covered by the first sale shown as clause (a) in the heading of the plaint and that there was no order relating to eviction from the land covered by the second sale mentioned in clause (b) therein. This question was never raised in the courts below and as it involves an investigation into matters of fact it was not possible to allow the same to be reopened at this stage.In the presence of the above principle which is firmly entrenched in the law ofit is difficult to conceive that the legislature intended to depart from it in Section 15 (l) (a) Fourthly nor has any reason been suggested for doing so. The language employed is not very happy but the clear requirement is that the tenant must hold the land as such. If his tenancy has come to an end and he has been dispossessed it can never be said that he is holding the land under tenancy of any one. The legislature can hardly be attributed the intention of giving the right to a tenant, who has been dispossessed and whose tenancy has been determined either before or during the pendency of the suit, to obtain a decree for possession byThis is particularly so as the statutory right ofis one which attaches to the land and is not a mere personal right. There could be no basis for the legislature giving an indefeasible right to a person who happens to be in possession of the land sold as a tenant of the vendor. His right is neither better nor worse than any other person who has been conferred that right by the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. For instance, ahas been given a right tothe sale of a share out of joint land by Clause (b) Fourthly of Section 15 (1). If amust retain his right upto the date of the decree, which he must, (See Surjit Singh v. Gurnam Singh,Pun LR 1063), there is no intelligible ground for treating a tenant differently. The tenant must show his right at all material times before he can succeed in a suit forIn other words his tenancy must remain intact and he must hold the land in his capacity as a tenant till the date of the decree.