ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRS. versus SHANTI PARSHAD (D) BY LRS. & OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1162 · Decided: 17-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1162
1162
ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRs.
v.
SHANTI PARSHAD (D) BY LRs. & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6915 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
[K. M. JOSEPH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953:
s. 25 – Bar of jurisdiction of the civil court under – When the
landlord-tenant relationship is disputed in a proceeding u/s. 14A –
Held: If a landlord-tenant relationship is disputed, despite the
exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Revenue Court, to even order
eviction of a tenant, the Civil Court would still retain jurisdiction in
a case, despite the bar u/s. 25 – Thus, the validity of the orders u/s.
14A is open to scrutiny in a Civil Court, in a situation, when the
tenant denies and disputes the case of the landlord that there is a
landlord-tenant relationship – However, a mere plea by the tenant,
should not render the Authorities helpless and bereft of power to
order eviction – In a situation, where the Authority finds the plea of
the tenant to be completely frivolous and mere attempt at blocking
the proceedings, the validity enacted u/s. 25 cannot be diluted – On
facts, appellant claiming to have purchased the suit property from
Mahant, the previous landlord filed application for ejectment of
respondent No. 1-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent which
was allowed by the Assistant Collector and thereafter, upheld by
the Collector and the Commissioner – First respondent then filed
suit seeking declaration that the suit property is owned by a Mandir,
the Mahant having sold it to appellant as manager of the Mandir
without having any title in the property– Suit decreed by the trial
court holding that the Mandir was the owner and no rights were
conveyed to the appellants under the sale – Thereafter, appeal as
also Second Appeal by the appellants dismissed – Appellants claim
under an assignment made by the Mahant, who has been found to
be without Authority to convey any right to the appellants – In such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit filed by tenant is clearly
barred – s. 14A.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1163
s. 25 – Exclusion of courts and authorities – Interpretation
of – Explained.
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887: ss. 40-45, 75-78, 80, 82, 84, 88,
89, 98-100 – Provisions pertaining to ejectment of tenant –
Provisions pertaining to jurisdiction and procedure – Stated.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
received the assent of the President on 15.04.1953. The Act went
on to introduce the concept of permissible area, which was
defined in the Act. It further provided for protection of the tenant
from being evicted except in certain circumstances.
[Para 15][1176-A-B]
1.2 The submission of the respondent, who successfully
instituted the Suit in question and prosecuted the same, is that
the bar on the Section 25 will not apply, having regard to the fact
that there is a dispute relating to the very existence of landlord-
tenant relationship; and that the ouster of the Civil Court’s
jurisdiction does not apply in view of the fact that plaintiff-tenant
does not admit that the appellants are his landlords. Such a
question cannot be decided by the Authority in an action under
Section 14A of the Act. Equally, the incompetency is applicable
to the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Body, viz., the
Collector and the Commissioner. In fact, the Financial
Commissioner rightly opined that it is a matter for consideration
by a Civil Court. [Para 21][1178-C-E]
1.3 The application for ejectment was filed by the appellants
claiming to have purchased the rights of the previous landlord by
way of sale deed. The dispute was whether the Mandir was the
owner and the Mahant was competent in his own rights to convey
the rights of the land owner. The Assistant Collector, Collector
and the Commissioner repelled the contention of the respondent-
tenant, by holding that in view of the transfer by the sale deed
dated 16.11.1956 by the Mahant, the appellants became landlords,
competent to eject the respondent-tenant. The findings of the
Civil Courts, on the other hand, is that the respondent-tenant
has never paid rent and attorned to the appellants and the Mandir
ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRs. v. SHANTI PARSHAD (D) BY LRs.
& OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
was the owner and no rights were conveyed to the appellants
under the sale. [Para 22][1178-E-G]
2.1 Section 14A of the Act provi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.