SHYAM LAL versus DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 930, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Matter referred to larger bench
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 930 
SHYAM LAL 
v. 
DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4245 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 27, 2015. 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy- Whether tenant 
of agricultural holding becomes a trespasser after the expiry 
of period of tenancy or continues to be a tenant having 
protection from eviction under the tenancy Jaws - Held: A 
D tenant of agricultural holding does not become a trespasser 
after the expiry of period of tenancy - However, in view of 
law laid down in* Sukhdev Singh's case that after expiry of 
fixed term tenancy of agricultural land, the tenant no longer 
continues to be tenant, the matter is referred to larger Bench 
E for laying down the correct law on the question - Punjab 
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - ss. 9, 14, 14A and 18 
- Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. 
Words and Phrases -
'Tenant' - Meaning of, in the 
F context of Agricultural Tenancy. 
Referring the matter to Larger Bench, the Court 
HELD 1.1 In view of the provisions of Sections 9, 
14, 14A and 18 together of Punjab Security of Land 
G Tenure Act, 1953 a tenant of an agricultural land is 
liable to be evicted only in the manner provided under 
the Act notwithstanding any contract on the basis of 
which tenant occupied possession of the land for the 
H 
930
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
931 
GARIB DASS 
purpose of cultivation. Action for eviction of a tenant A 
can be taken before a Revenue Authority to whom 
power and jurisdiction has been conferred by the said 
Act. [Para 19] (944-H; 945-A-B] 
1.2 In view of various tenancy laws applicable in B 
the State of Punjab and the law discussed by this Court 
and the High Court, the trial court, the appellate court 
and the High Court have committed error of law in 
holding that a tenant of agricultural holding becomes 
a trespasser after the expiry of period of tenancy. The C 
High Court and the lower courts have failed to consider 
that the agricultural tenancy is governed by the State 
Tenancy Laws which are special Acts for the purpose 
of regulating the tenancy and protecting the tenants 
from eviction without following the procedure provided D 
in those State Laws. The procedure for eviction of 
tenant in occupation of building by approaching the 
civil court under Rent Control Act will not.be applicable 
for evicting the tenants holding agricultural land. It is 
the Revenue Court specially empowered to take action E 
for eviction of tenant in the manner provided under the 
Act notwithstanding any contract on the basis of which 
the tenant occupied possession of the agricultural land 
for the purpose of cultivation. [Para 32] (953-C-G] 
F 
2. However in* Sukhdev Singh's case, a Bench of 
this Court on consideration of the provisions of Punjab 
Security of Land
Tenures Act, 1953 was of the opinion 
that after the expiry of fixed term tenancy in respect of 
agricultural land, the tenancy gets terminated by efflux G 
of time and person occupying the lease premises no 
longer remains tenant. The Court is not in agreement 
with the view taken by this Court in* Sukhdev Singh's 
case. Therefore to maintain judicial discipline, the H
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench for laying 
down a correct law. [Paras 33 and 34) [953-H; 954-A-B] 
B 
Sukhdev Singh (D) thr. Lrs. & ors. vs. Puran & Ors. 
2015 (3) SCALE 144 - held inapplicable 
V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodai Ammal 1980 (1) SCR 
334: (1979) 4 sec 214; R. v. Bhupal Prasad VS. State of 
AP. & Ors. 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 658: (1995) 5 sec 698; 
Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 34; 
c Sanwat Singh vs. Zail Singh 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 275: 
(1997) 9 SCC 468; Tulsi vs. Paro 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 535: 
(1997) 2 SCC 706; Ram Lal vs. Darshan Lal and Ors. 
(2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427; Mandir Jhoke Hari Har & Ors. 
vs. Ajit Kaur & Ors. 1977 PLJ 315; Rameshwar vs. Sheo 
o Chand & Ors. 1981 PLJ 362 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(1971) 1 sec 34 
referred to. 
Para 28 
E 
1980 (1) SCR 334 
referred to. 
Para 25 
Para 31 
Para 26 
F 
G 
(2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427 referred to. 
1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 658 referred to. 
1977 PLJ 315 
1981 PLJ 362 
referred to. 
referred to. 
Para 8 
Para 8 
2015 (3) SCALE 144 
held inapplicable. Para 27 
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 275 referred to. 
1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 535 referred to. 
Para 29 
Para 30 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:· Civil Appeal No. 
4245 of 2012. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2010 of the
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
933 
GARIB DASS 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R. S. A. 
A 
No, 3785 of 2009. 
· Pravin H. Parekh, Shashank Kumar, Shashank 
Bhansali, Anurag Tripathi, Ajay Awasthi (for Parekh & Co.), 
for the Appellant. 
B 
Manoj Swarup, Ankit Swarup, Tanya Swarup, Rohit 
Kumar Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is 
directed against the judgment dated 28.6.2010 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the second appeal 
filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed with costs 
throughout. 
c 
D 
2. The litigation between the parties commenced on the 
filing of the suit by the plaintiff-appellant for permanent 
injunction against the respondent-defendant claiming to 
have been in possession of the suit property for 27-28 years E 
as Gair Marusi and alleging that the respondent was 
threatening to dispossess him. The plaintiff claimed himself 
to be in possession over the agricultural land measuring 122 
kanals 2 marlas situated in village Chhainsa, Tehsil 
Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad having tube-well, electricity F 
connection and his house in Killa No.26 in which he is 
allegedly residing for the last 27-28 years continuously and 
also having another Engine Tubewell Bore in killa no.26(1-
2). It is the case of the plaintiff that earlier Ram Dass Chela 
Garib Das was the owner of the aforesaid land, which is G 
now recorded in the
ownership of the defenda9t-respondent 
vide Rapat No.508 dated 8.8.2003. 
3. The case of the respondent on the other hand is that 
the suit property was leased to the appellant-plaintiff by its H
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A original owner Ram Dass Chela with effect from 12. 7 .1986 
to June, 1994 and then again from 29.5.1996 till 28.5.2005 
for a consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. The respondent had 
purchased the suit property on 8.8.2000. The respondent-
defendant pleaded that after expiry of the lease on 
B 28.5.2005 the suit property was to revert back to the 
defendant, but the plaintiff illegally and unlawfully wanted 
to grab the suit land and as such the respondent also filed 
a counter-claim in the said suit seeking a decree for 
mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to handover 
C vacant peaceful possession of the land to the defendant 
with damages at the rate of Rs.17,800/- per annum for 
unauthorized occupation of the suit land. Contesting this 
counter claim, plaintiff replied that after the expiry of lease, 
D plaintiff has become statutory tenant and his tenancy is 
protected by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land 
Tenure Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "1953Act"). 
It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is liable to pay fixed 
rent of Rs.3000/- per annum and not the amount which has 
E been claimed by the defendant as damages. 
4. The trial court, after considering the pleadings and 
evidence led before it, dismissed the suit of the appellant 
but allowed the counter-claim holding that the plaintiff was 
F not a Gair marusi but a tenant over the suit property whose 
tenancy had expired on 28.5.2005 and was
a trespasser 
thereafter. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the 
plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed 
by the District Court upholding the findings of the trial court. 
G The plaintiff-appellant then moved the High Court by way 
of second appeal contending that he was a tenant under 
section 4(5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Section 
2(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and 
therefore, could be evicted only on the grounds mentioned 
H in Section 17 of the 1953Act. The appellant also contended
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
935 
GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J] 
that the lease deed produced by the respondent was not A 
admissible in evidence as it was not registered. 
5. Dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff with costs, 
learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the 
appellant would not be a tenant after the expiry of the lease B 
and would also not be entitled to protection under Section 
9 of the 1953 Act as the respondent landlord had made his 
intention of not extending the lease by filing a counter-claim 
against the petitioner seeking possession. Section 9 of the 
1953 Act protects subsistent tenancy and not a trespasser C 
in possession after the expiry of the lease. Learned Single 
Judge further held that though an unregistered lease deed 
was not admissible in evidence, however as the lease deed 
herein was meant for agricultural purposes, it was exempt 
from registration under Section 117 of the Transfer of D 
Property Act. Hence, the present appeal by special leave 
by the plaintiff under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
6. We have heard Mr. Parveen H. Parekh, learned 
senior counsel appearing for appellant and Mr. Manoj E 
Swarup, learned counsel for the respondent. We have also 
perused the impugned judgment and all the papers placed 
before us. The question that arises for consideration is as 
to whether the plaintiff-appellant became a trespasser after 
expiry of the lease period or continued to be a tenant having F 
protection for
eviction under the tenancy laws. 
7. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel appearing 
for the appellant, referred relevant provisions of the Punjab 
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and submitted that a G 
tenant in possession of agricultural land cannot be held to 
be a trespasser only because of expiry of the period for 
which he was put in possession as a tenant. According to 
the learned senior counsel, even after the expiry of the 
lease or contract, he will continue as the statutory tenant H
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A and not as the trespasser. Learned senior counsel put 
reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case 
of Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab & ors., (1971) 1 SCC 
34, II. Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodai Ammal, (1979) 4 
SCC 214, and on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 
B decision in Ram Lal vs. Darshan Lal & ors., (2008) 3 RCR 
(Civil) 427. 
8. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the 
respondent,_in support of his contention said that after the 
C expiry of lease the lessee became a trespasser, relied upon 
decisions of this Court in R. II. Bhupal Prasad vs. State of 
A.P. & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 698, and the decisions of the 
Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Mandir 
Jhoke Hari Har& ors. vs. Ajit Kaur& ors., 1977 PLJ 315 
D and Rameshwar vs. Sheo Chand & ors., 1981 PLJ 362. 
9. To decide rival claims of the parties, we think it 
appropriate to reproduce here relevant provisions of the law. 
E 
10. In order to provide for the security of land tenure 
and incidental matters, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures 
Act, 1953 was enacted. However, such provisions of land 
security Act which are inconsistent with the newly enacted 
provisions of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1972 
F has been repealed. The provisions of 1953 Act still holds 
the field in many matters with regard to eviction and 
protection of tenants in the manner not provided in the Act. 
Section 2(6) of the Act defines the word 'Tenant'
as under:·· 
G 
H 
"Tenant" has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab 
Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1998), and includes a 
sub-tenant, and self-cultivating lessee, but shall not 
include a present holder, as defined in section 2 of the 
resettlement Act. 
11. Section 4(5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (in
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
937 
GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
short, "1887 Act") defines the word 'tenant' as under:-
A 
"4. Definitions- In this Act, unless there in something 
repugnant in the subject or context,-
xxxx 
B 
(5) "tenant" means a person who holds land under 
another person, and is or but for a special contract 
would be, liable to pay rent for U1at land to that other 
person; but does not include -
(a) an inferior landowner, or 
(b) a mortgagee of the rights of a landowner, or 
(c), a person. to Whom a holding has been 
c 
transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in 
D 
farm under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 (XVII 
of 1887), for the recovery of an arrear of land 
revenue or of a sum _recoverable as such an arrear 
or 
(d) a person who takes from the Government a lease 
. of unoccupied land for the purpose of subletting it." 
E 
12. Section 2(8) of the 1887 Act defines the word 
F 
"tenancy" as a parcel of land held by a tenant of a landlord 
under one lease or one set of conditions. Section 40 of 
the said Act provides the grounds under which the tenant, 
who is in occupation for a fixed term, can be ejected. 
Section 40 rea\Js as under: 
G 
"40. Grounds of ejectment of tenant for a fixed 
term-
A tenant not having a right of occupancy but holding H
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order 
of competent authority, shall be liable to be ejected from 
his tenancy at the expiration of that term, and, on any 
of the following grounds, before the expiration thereof 
B 
namely:-
(a) that he has used the land comprised in the 
tenancy in a manner which renders it unfit for the 
purposes for which, he held it ; 
c 
(b) where rent is payable in kind, that he has without 
sufficient cause failed to cultivate that land in the 
manner, or to the extent customary in the locality in 
which the land is situate ; 
D 
(c) on any ground which would justify ejectment under 
the contract decree or order." 
13. Reading the definition of tenant in both the Acts 
together would show that a tenant includes a self cultivating 
tenant and is liable to pay rent. Section 42 of the 1887 Act 
E prescribes the procedure for ejectment, which is quoted 
F 
G 
hereinbelow: 
"42. Restriction of Ejectment-A tenant shall not be 
ejected otherwise that in execution of a decree for 
ejectment, except in the following cases, namely:-
(a) when a decree for an arrear of rent in respect of 
his tenancy hasbeen passed against him and 
remains unsatisfied; 
(b) when the tenant has not a right of occupancy and 
does not hold for a fixed term under a contract or a 
decree or order of competent authority." 
14. Coming back to 1953 Act, which provides the 
H circumstances where the tenancy shall continue.
Section

SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
939 
GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
8 reads as under:-
A 
"8. Continuity of tenancies -
The continuity of tenancy shall not be affected by-
( a) the death of the landlord, or 
(b) the death of tenant , except when the tenant leaves 
no male lineal descendants or mother or widow, and 
B 
(c) any change therein under the same land-owner, and C 
for the purposes of sections 17 and 18 of this Act, such 
tenancy shall be the last area so held." 
15. Section 9 of the 1953 Act provides the liability of 
the tenant to be ejected from the land held by him. Section D 
9 reads as under:-
"9. Liability of the tenant to be ejected.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law 
for the time being in force, no land-owner shall be E 
competent to eject the tenant except when such tenant 
(i) is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or 
is a tenant of a small land-owner, {or} 
F 
(ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause, 
or 
(iii) is in arrears of rent at the commencement of this 
Act, or 
G 
(iv) has failed, or fails, without sufficient cause, to 
cultivate the land comprised in his tenancy in the 
manner or to the extent customary in the locality in 
which the land is situate, or 
H
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
(v) has used, or uses, the land comprised in his 
tenancy in a manner which has rendered, or renders 
it unfit for the purpose for which he holds it, or 
(vi) has sublet the tenancy or a part thereof, provided 
B 
that where only a part of the tenancy has been sublet, 
the tenant shall be liable to be ejected only from such 
part, or 
(vii) refuses to execute a Qabuliyat or a Patta, in the 
c 
form prescribed, in respect of his tenancy on being 
called upon to do so by an Assistant Collector on an 
application made to him for this purpose by the land 
owner 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Explanation - For the purposes of clause (iii), a 
tenant shall be deemed to be in arrears of rent at the 
commencement of this Act, only if the payment of 
arrears is not made by the tenant within a period of 
two months from the date of notice of execution of 
decree or order, directing him to pay such arrears of 
rent. 
(2)] Notwithstanding anything contained hereinbefore 
a tenant shall also be liable to be ejected from any 
area which he holds in any capacity whatever in 
excess of the permissible area; 
Provided that the portion of the tenancy from which 
such tenant can be ejected shall be determined at 
his option if the area of his tenancy under the land-
owner concerned is in excess of the area from which 
he can be ejected by the said land owner; 
Provided further that if the tenant holds land of 
several land-own~rs and more than one land-owner 
H
seeks his ejectment, the right to ejectment shall be
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
941 
GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
exercised in the order in which the applications have A 
been made or suits have been filed by the land-
owners concerned, 'and in case of simultaneous 
applications or suits the priority for ejectment shall 
commence serially from the smallest land-owner. 
Explanation.- Where a tenant holds land jointly with 
other tenants, only his share in the joint tenancy shall 
B 
be taken into account in computing the area held by c 
him." 
16. Section 10 makes provision for restoration of tenant 
ejected after 15th August, 1947. The said provisions are as 
under:-
"10. Restoration of tenant ejected after the 1 s•h of 
August, 1947-
D 
(1) Where a tenant has been ejected from any land in 
excess of the permissible area on grounds other than 
E 
those mentioned in section 9, before the 
commencement of this Act, and after the 15th August, 
1947, and such land is under self-cultivation, such 
tenant shall, [subject to the provisions of this Act be 
entitled to be restored to his tenancy in the manner F 
prescribed on the same terms and conditions on 
which it Was held by him at the time of his ejectment, 
on an application made to an Assistant Collector of 
the first Grade having jurisdiction, within one year 
from the date of intimation of reservation after the G 
commencement of this Act, or, if no such reservation 
is made within the period specified in sub-section(3) 
of section 5, two years from the date of
commencement of this Act; 
H
942 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F' 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 2 S.C.R. 
Provided that if more tenants than one have been 
ejected from the same tenancy, the right of 
application for restoration shall be exercisable in 
serial order of priority commeJ']cing from the tenant 
first ejected and to the extent in each case of the 
permissible area, after taking into account any other 
tenancy or land which the ejected tenant holds at the 
time of his application for restoration. 
(2) On receipt of an application the Assistant Collector 
shall, after giving to the parties notice in writing and 
a reasonable opportunity to be heard, determine the 
dispute summarily, and shall keep a memorandum 
of evidence and a gist of his final order with brief 
reasons therefor. 
(3) When an application has been made, any 
proceedings in relation to the same matter pending 
in any other court or before any other authority shall 
be stayed on receipt of information by that court or 
authority from such assistant collector of the fact of 
having received the application, and all such 
proceedings in a court or before any authority shall 
lapse when the dispute has been determined by the 
Assistant Collector acting under this Act. 
(4) A land-owner or any other person in actual 
possession of land at the time of restoration shall be 
entitled to such compensation as may be determined 
by the Assistant Collector, from the tenant intended 
to be restored for any loss suffered in consideration 
of
anything done prior to the date of his first receiving 
information of the application. 
Provided that no ejected tenant shall be restored to 
his tenancy as provided hereinbefore unless he has
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
943 
GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
paid compensation as determined by the Assistant A 
Collector to the land-owner or other person, if any as 
the case may be." 
17. Section 14-A provides for ejectment and recovery 
of arrears of rent which reads as under :-
B 
"14-A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary 
contained in any other law for the time being in force, 
and subject to the provisions of section 9-A.-
(i) a land owner desiring to eject a tenant under C 
this Act shall apply in writing to the Assistant 
Collector First Grade having jurisdiction, who 
shall thereafter proceed as provided for in sub-
section (2) of sub-section 10 of this Act, and the D 
provisions of sub-section (3) of the said section shall 
also apply in relation to such application, provided 
that the tenants rights to compensation and 
acquisition of occupancy rights, if any under the 
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), shall not E 
be affected; 
Provided that if the tenant makes payment of arrears 
of rent and interest, to be calculated by the Assistant 
Collector, First Grade, at eight per centum per annum 
F 
on such arrears together with such costs of the 
application, if any, as may be allowed by Assistant 
Collector, First Grade, either on the day of first hearing 
or within fifteen days from the date of such hearing, he 
shall not be ejected 
G 
(ii) a land-owner desiring to recover arrears of rent 
from a tenant shall apply in writing to the
Assistant 
Collector Second Grade, having jurisdiction, who 
shall thereupon send a notice in the form prescribed H
944 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
to the tenant either to deposit the rent or value thereof 
, if payable 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. Where, after summary 
determination, as provided for in sub-section (2) of 
Section 10 of this Act, the Assistant Collector finds 
that the tenant has not paid or deposited the rent he 
shall eject the tenant summarily and put the 
landowner in possession of the land concerned; 
(iii) (a} if a landlord refuses to accept rent from his 
tenant or demands rent in excess of what he is 
entitled to under this Act, or refuses to give a receipt, 
the tenant may in writing inform the Assistant 
Collector second Grade, having jurisdiction of the 
fact; 
(b) 
on receiving such application, the Assistant 
Collector shall by a written notice require the landlord 
to accept the rent payable in accordance with this Act, 
or to give a receipt, as the case maybe , or both 
,within 60 days of the receipt of the notice " 
18. Perusal of Section 18 of 1953 Act would show that 
the tenant have also been given right to purchase the land 
if he is in continuous possession of the land for a minimum 
period of six years. This Section even gives a right to a 
tenant, to purchase land, who was ejected from his tenancy 
G after
141h August, 1947 and who was in continuous 
possession of the land for a period of six years. 
19. Considering the provisions of Sections 9, 14, 14A 
and 18 together, we have no doubt in our mind that a tenant 
H of an agricultural land is liable to be evicted only in the
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
945 
GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
manner provided under the Act notwithstanding any contract A 
on the basis of which tenant occupied possession of the 
land for the purpose of cultivation. We are also of the view 
that action for eviction of a tenant can be taken before a 
Revenue Authority to whom power and jurisdiction has been 
conferred by the said Act. 
B 
20. The defendant-respondent's own case in the written 
statement is that the appellant-tenant came in possession 
of the land in 1986 and remained in continuous possession 
till 2005. Indisputably, the appellant's name was recorded C 
in Jamabandies, which is evident from the Exhibit P-1 and 
P-2. Khasra Girdwari entries are also in the name of 
appellant. The trial court without appreciating the evidence 
came to the following conclusion that the appellant became 
a trespasser. The court held:-
D 
"The jamabandies produced by both the parties are self 
contradictory. The jamabandies produced by the plaintiff 
name of the plaintiff is entitled in the gair marusi record 
and chakota as the name is entered at Rs.3,000/- per E 
annum and Ram Dass Chela Garib Dass has given the 
aforesaid land to Shyam lal on lease from 29.5.1956 
to 28.5.2005 for Rs. 1,60,000/-. Therefore, it proves 
that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property 
is termed to be a trespasser and plaintiff has not having F 
any right to remain over the suit property as tenant. It · 
is also pointed
out that if the plaintiff is a gair marusi 
tenant. He has to prove on file the payment made by 
him to the land owner but there is nothing on record 
to prove this fact that the plaintiff has paid any amount G 
to the defendant/land owners." 
21. The Appellate Court, although took notice of the 
entries in the .revenue record wherein plaintiff-appellant was 
recorded as Gair Marusi, held that those entries are without H
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A any basis and liable to be ignored. The learned Appellate 
Court further held that after the expiry of lease period in 
2005 the appellant loses authorization to hold possession 
of the land and his right to hold possession is not more than 
8 
a trespasser. 
22. Similar provisions have been made in the Orissa 
Tenancy Act, 1913. Section 3(23) is the definition of tenant 
which means a person who holds land under another 
person, and is, but for a special contract would be, liable 
C to pay rent for that land to that person. 
23. Sub-section 2 of Section 5 of the Orissa Act defines 
the term "Raiyat", which means primarily a person who has 
acquired the right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating 
o it by himself or by person of his family or by hired servants 
and also includes successors-in-interest or person who have 
acquired such right. Further, where a tenant of land has 
the right to bring it under cultivation shall be deemed to have 
E 
F 
G 
H 
acquired a right to hold it for the purpose of cultivation. 
24. We find similar definition of tenant under the 
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Section 5(43) defines the 
word 'tenant' as under :-
"(43) "Tenant" shall mean the person by whom rent is, 
or, but for a contract, express or implied, would be, 
payable and except when the contrary intention 
appears, shall include -
(a) 
in the Abu area, a permanent tenat or 
protected tenant, 
(b) 
In the Ajmer area, an
ex-proprietary tenant or 
an occupancy tenant or a hereditary tenant or a 
non-occupancy tenant or a Bhooswami or Kashtkar,
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
947 
GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
(c) in the Sunel area, an ex-proprietary tenant or a A 
pakka tenant or an ordinary tenant, 
(d) 
a co-tenant, 
(e) 
a grove-holder, 
B 
(f) 
a village servant 
(ff) 
a tenant holding from a landowner, 
(g) 
a tenant of Khudkasht, 
c 
(h) 
a mortgages of tenancy rights, and 
(i} 
a sub-tenant 
but shall not include a grantee at a favourable rate of D 
rent or an ijaradar or a thekadar or a trespasser" 
25. Now we shall discuss the decisions relied upon by 
the learned counsel on either side. In Dhanapal Chettiar's 
case (supra), the question that came for consideration E 
before the larger Bench of this Court was as to whether 
.under the Rent Control Act notice under Section 106 of the 
Transfer of Property Act is necessary for the purpose of 
proceeding against the tenant for his eviction on the 
grounds mentioned in the Rent Control Legislation. This F 
Court held that in the case of eviction under the Rent Act, 
the tenancy actually terminates on the passing of the order 
or decree for eviction. Hence, determination of a lease in 
accordance with the Transfer of Property Act is not 
necessary and a mere surplusage because the landlord G 
cannot get eviction of the tenant even after such 
determination. The tenant continues to be so even 
thereafter. 
26. Similarly the decision relied upon by the respondent H 
•
948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A in Bhupal Prasad's case (supra) is also have no 
application in the present case inasmuch as it was a case 
under the Rent Control Act. In our considered opinion, the 
aforesaid two decisions of this Court deal with the status 
of the tenant under the Rent Control Act after the expiry of 
B fixed term lease and the right of landlord to get eviction on 
certain grounds. In the case of tenant holding agricultural 
land, the tenancy and procedure of ejectment of tenant are 
governed by relevant State Tenancy Laws, which are special 
Act and such tenancy is not covered by Transfer of Property 
c Act. 
27. In the case of Sukhdev Singh (D) thr. Lrs. & ors. 
vs. Puran & ors., [SLP(C)No.18654 of 2008], a Bench of 
this Court on consideration of the provisions of the Punjab 
D Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 was of the opinion that 
after the expiry of the fixed term tenancy in respect of 
agricultural land, the provision of 1953 Act will have no 
application. The Court observed:-
E 
F 
G 
"ln our view, the aforesaid argument of the learned 
counsel does not merit acceptance. Admittedly, the 
petitioners were granted lease of the suit land in 1955 
for a period of 20 years and the term of their lease 
ended in 1975. Section 9 of the 1953 Act is attracted 
only when a tenant is sought to be evicted. The said 
section is not applicable to a case where the tenancy 
gets terminated by efflux of time and the person 
occupying the lease
premises no longer remains tenant. 
There is no provision in the 1953 Act similar to those 
contained in the Urban Rent Control Legislations under 
which a tenant becomes statutory tenant after expiry 
of the contractual tenure of the tenancy." 
28. In the case of Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab, 
H (1971) 1 SCC ·34, considering the provisions of Sections
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
949 
GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
9, 14A and Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land A 
Tenure Act, 1953 and discussing the right of the tenant to 
purchase the land, this Court held: 
"6. It was urged that since Section 18 commences with 
a non-obstante clause viz. "Notwithstanding anything to B 
the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract", 
if a proceeding in ejectment is lodged against the tenant 
which ulitmately is allowed, the tenant cannot make a 
claim during the pendency of the proceeding to 
purchase the land. To hold otherwise, it was urged, C 
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 D 
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 Section 14-A, at the 
instance of the land-owner. Under the Act, the tenancy E 
does not stand terminated merely because a 
proceeding in ejectment is instituted. The tenancy is 
determined only in the conditions prescribed by Section 
9 and in the manner provided by Section 14-A. If a F 
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 G 
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 H
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
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." 
B 
29. In Sanwat Singh vs. Zail Singh, (1997) 9 SCC 
468, while discussing tenant's right under 1953Act in a case 
where the land in possession of the tenant is sold by the 
owner of the land, this Court held that a tenant as defined 
under Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 means a person who holds 
C the land under another person and is, but for a special 
contract, would be, liable to pay rent and he is liable to be 
evicted only under certain conditions as provided under 
Section 9 of the said Act. Referring Section 9 of the said 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Act, this Court held: 
"5. In other words, notwithstanding anything contained 
in any other law for the time being in force, including 
the law relating to prescription, a tenant in possession 
of the demised property by the vendor is not liable to 
ejectment except in accordance with the provisions 
contained in Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land 
Tenures Act, 1953. It is not his case that he has 
contravened any of the provisions and is liable to be 
ejected. Even otherwise, if his case is that he has 
contravened any of the provisions, unless appropriate 
action in accordance with law is taken and order 
passed, he is entitled to resist unlawful interference with
the possession. Thereby, the decree granted by the 
appellate court and confirmed by the High Court is not 
correct in law." 
30. In Tulsi vs. Paro, (1997) 2 SCC 706, this Court 
after considering provisions of Section 105 of the Transfer 
of Property Act observed:
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
951 
GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
"It is not necessary that lease should always be reduced A 
to writing. What is necessary is for transfer of a right 
of enjoyment of the property made for a certain time, 
expressed or implied and for consideration of the price, 
paid or promised, the transferee must have been put 
in possession of the demised property. It is also B 
necessary that an agreement can be entered into for 
rendering periodical service and for consideration 
thereof and on transfer of the land to the transferee and 
acceptance thereof, either orally or in writing, the lease 
comes into existence. It is seen that when the name C 
of the appellant has successively found place in the 
records for the period from 1951-52 to 1971-72 as 
"tenant at will", the necessary conclusion is that he is 
a tenant at will liable to eviction according to law. The D 
theory that he is a licensee, as has been accepted by 
the High Court and the trial court, is untenable. A 
licensee has no right in the property, not to speak of 
any right to the exclusive possession of the property 
and animus of possession always remains with the E 
licensor; the licensee gets the possession only with the 
consent of the licensor and is liable to vacate when so 
asked. In this case, since the appellant remained in 
uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property 
for over 20 years, it is unthinkable to conclude that they F 
are only licensee. The
High Court and the trial court, 
therefore, were clearly in error in reaching the 
conclusion that the appellant is only a licensee. On the 
other hand, from the facts, it is clear that the appellant 
is a tenant and he will be liable for ejectment only in G 
accordance with law. If he is otherwise entitled to 
tenancy right of the property, the right can be had in 
accordance with law and it is open to him to work out 
the same in accordance with law." 
H
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
31. In the case of Ram Lal vs. Darshan Lal and ors., 
(2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427, a Bench of Punjab and Haryana 
High Court was considering the right of the tenant conferred 
by Section 9 of the 1953 Act. In that case, the tenant was 
in possession of the agricultural land on the basis of the 
B lease for 20 years. Upon expiry of the said lease period, a 
suit for possession was filed contending that after expiry of 
the lease the tenant's possession became illegal and 
unauthorized. Hence, he is liable to be evicted by obtaining 
a decree from civil court. Rejecting the contention of the 
C landlord, the High Court held that in terms of provisions 
contained in 1953Act, a tenant shall be evicted only on the 
grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the said Act. The Court 
observed 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"6. In Shri Raja Durga Singh Versus Tho/u and others, 
AIR 1963 SC-361, the Court found that suit for 
possession and mesne profits against the defendant 
who claims to be occupancy tenant and status as 
tenant is not barred from the cognizance of the Civil 
Court. However, in the present case, it is the admitted 
fact that defendant No.1 was inducted as tenant for a 
period of 20 years. Therefore, the question which 
requires to be examined is whether after the expiry of 
the period of lease, the tenant can be evicted by filing 
a Civil Suit for possession. The said question was not 
the question raised or decided in the aforesaid 
judgment.
Therefore, even the said judgment provides 
little assistance to the appellant. 
7. In the present case, the. Punjab Security of Land 
Tenures Act, 1953 protects the tenancy of agricultural 
land in favour of the tenant. The Punjab Security of 
Land Tenures Act, 1953 specifies the grounds of 
eviction which are available to the landlord. The eviction
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
953 
GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.] 
of a tenant after the expiry of lease is not a ground A 
mentioned therein. Therefore, after the expiry of lease, 
the tenant would be a statutory tenant and such tenant 
can be evicted only in terms of one or the other grounds 
of eviction contemplated under Section 9 of the Punjab 
Security of land Tenures Act, 1953. Such eviction B 
proceedings have to be initiated before the competent 
Revenue Court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality 
or irregularity in the finding recorded that the Civil Court 
has no jurisdiction to grant a decree for possession." 
32. Taking into consideration the various tenancy laws 
applicable in the State of Punjab and the law discussed by 
this Court and the High Court, in our considered opinion 
c 
the trial court, the appellate court and the High Court have 
committed error of law in holding that a tenant of agricultural D 
. holding becomes a trespasser after the expiry of period of 
tenancy. The High Court and the lower courts have failed 
to consider that the agricultural tenancy are governed by 
the State Tenancy Laws which are special Acts for the 
purpose of regulating the tenancy and protecting the tenants 
E 
from eviction without following the procedure provided in 
those State Laws. The procedure for eviction of tenant in 
occupation of building by approaching the civil court under 
Rent Control Act will not be applicable for evicting the F 
tenants
holding agricultural land. We are further of the view 
that it is the Revenue Court specially empowered to take 
action for eviction of tenant in the manner provided under 
the Act notwithstanding any contract on the basis of which 
the tenant occupied possession of the agricultural land for G 
the purpose of cultivation. 
33. Be that as it may, in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra) 
a Bench of this Court on consideration of the provisions of 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was of the H

954 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 
A opinion that after the expiry of fixed term tenancy in respect 
of agricultural land, the tenancy gets terminated by efflux 
of time and person occupying the lease premises no longer 
remains tenant. With due respect, we are not in agreement 
with the view taken by this Court in Sukhdev Singh's case 
B (supra). 
c 
34. In the aforesaid circumstances, to maintain judicial 
discipline, the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench 
for laying down a correct law. 
35. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the 
record before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for placing 
the matter before a larger Bench. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Matter referred to 
Larger Bench