Case: Munshi &amp; Ors Vs. Richpal &amp; Ors

Bhawani Dass, respondent No. 2 herein, who owned agricultural land measuring 50 kanals and 6 mafias comprised in Khewat N o. 223, Khatauni No. 467-468, situate in village Kohlawas, Tehsil Dadri, District Mohindergarh, sold the same to Munshi, Dina and Rani Dutt, appellants before us, in lieu of Rs.10, 000/- by means of registered sale deed (Ex t. D-1) dated October 17, 1966. Alleging that he held as a non-occupancy tenant under Bhawani Dass the aforementioned land on the date of its sale to the appellants and had continued to do so and as such had a preferential right of its purchase under clause Fourthly of section 15(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (Punjab Act 1 of 1913) which still applies to the State of Haryana, Richpal, respondent No. 1 he rein, brought a suit on October 17, 1967 for possession of the said land by pre-emption, in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Charkhi Dadri. The suit was resisted by the appellants contending inter alia that the plaintiff-respondent was neither a non-occupancy tenant of the land in question under Bhawani Dass, vendor, nor was he in possession of the land either on the day of the aforesaid sale or on the day of the institution off the suit. After settling the necessary issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court by its judgment dated February 1, 1969, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-pre-emptor on payment of Rs. 10, 000/- (the consideration of the aforesaid sale) plus Rs. 727/- (the costs incurred by the vendees-appellants on the stamps, registration fee etc.) holding that he had been a tenant-at-will under the vendor from Kharif, 1957 to Rabi, 1968; that he was forcibly dispossessed after the sale; that wrongful eviction of a tenant could be of no consequence in the eye of law; that the plaintiff-pre-emptor continued to hold his rights as a tenant, including the right to immediate possession and cultivation of the land notwithstanding his wrongful ouster therefrom by the vendees who could not be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong s and the former must be deemed to continue in legal possession of the land which was comprised in his tenancy under the vendor on the date of the sale right upto the date of the suit and the date of the decree of the trial court in his favour. The trial court further held that a tenants eviction can only be had under sections 7 and 7A ofthe Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, and there is nothing on the record of the case to even insinuate that the plaintiffs tenancy which subsisted at the time of the impugned sale was ever determined or terminated under section 7 or 7A of the Act and the plaintiff who was in physical possession of the land in suit as a tenant at the time of the sale has to be taken to be in legal possession up till the present moment. In conclusion, the trial could held that the mere act of forcible dispossess ion of the plaintiff-pre-emptor at the hands of the vendees after the sale could not have the effect of divesting him of his right to hold the land which he had acquired as a tenant of the vendor and in the eye of law he must be presumed to have continued to be a tenant all along and as such had a preferential right of pre-emption. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was affirmed in appeal not only by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, but also by a learned Single Judge and Letters Patent Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved by these decisions the vendees-appellants have, as already stated, come up in further appeal to this Court.

Court's reasoning:
Though the l earned counsel for the appellants cited a few cases in support of his contention but did not unfortunately bring to our notice the decision of this Court in Dindyal &Anr. v. Raja Ram ([1971] 1 S.C.R. 298.) which may in an appropriate case require reconsideration by a larger bench of this Court, we think, he cannot be allowed canvass the aforesaid point. A reference to the record of the case shows that the point now sought to be agitated before us was not raised by the appellants either in their written statement or in the grounds of the three appeals preferred by them before the courts below. All that appeals from the record to have. been urged by them in the grounds of the aforesaid appeals was that the evidence had not been properly appraised and that in the absence of any lease deed in his favour or any receipt evidencing payment of rent by him to the vendor, mere entries in the khasra girdawaries were not enough to establish that the plaintiff-pre-emptor was a tenant of the suit land under the vendor at the time of thecannot, in view of the above noted provisions of law and the decision of this Court in Rikh Ram & Anr. v. Ram Kumar & Ors. ([1975] 2 S.C.C. 318.) be disputed that an order or decree directing eviction of a tenant is necessary to be obtained to bring about a determination of the tenancy. A fortiori, a person who has been in possession of land with the right to possess it continues to hold the land and to be a tenant in spite of having been wrongfully put out of possession especially if he has initiated proceedings for recovery of possession. As in the instant case, it has been concurrently found by all the courts below that the plaintiff-pre-emptor was a tenant of the suit land on the date of sale and it has not been alleged much less proved that his tenancy was, thereafter determined or terminated on any of the grounds set out in sections 7 and 7A ofthe Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 and he h ad admittedly applied to the Tehsildar for restoration of his possession, he cannot but be deemed to be a tenant of the suit land on the date of the sale as well as on all other material dates and thus fully qualified and entitled to pre-empt the land. We must fairly state that our judgment is based on the provisions of law brought to our notice by counsel and our conclusion is confined to the interpretation of the Acts referred to above.