BAKHATAWAR versus SHRI SATNARAIN ATID ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 19-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI NEKI S/0 BAKHATAWAR 
v. 
SHRI SATNARAIN At'ID ORS. 
DECEMBER 19, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953: Section 9. 
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887: Section 70. 
Tenancy 
Law-Tenant-Non-Payment 
of 
rent-Eviction 
order-Validity of-Appellant tenant of demised land-{}nder contract liable 
to pay rent of I/3rd of produce to landlord-Tenant not obtaining any receipt 
from general power of attorney of landlord on account off aith-Due to failure 
A 
B 
c 
of the crop in the year 1978, he could not pay the share of the crop but D 
subsequently he had paid the sam~Application for eviction filed by general 
power of attorney of landlord-Eviction order passed by primary authority on 
the ground that tenant made an admission that he had not paid the rent for 
1978-0rder affirmed by Revisional Authority-Writ dismissed by High 
Court-Appeal, before supreme Court-Held, since the appellant has been 
tenant for the past 50 years and never committed def a ult in the payment of E 
share of the crop, it is unlikely that he would commit default in the payment 
of rent for 1978-The normal probable human conduct would show that he 
must have paid the amount to the agent of the principal landlord-Subsequent 
to the filing of the application for three years he had already paid the rent to 
the respondent-G.P A-On a conspectus of the relevant provisions and the F 
probable human conduct, the finding recorded by the commissioner is not 
sustainable-Generally, tenant is not expected to demand from the landlord 
issue of a rent receipt for payment of the amount unless there is a special 
contract in that behalf--ln this case, there appears to be a common practice 
of payment by way of the share in the crop, after the harvest, to the agent of 
the landlord--ln these circumstances the finding that the appellaJlt has com- G 
mitted default in payment of rent and had paid the same in the later year is 
not correct-He is not liable to ejection. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2309 of 
1986. 
H 
863 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS(l996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.84 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High court in C.W.P. No. 3447 of 1984. 
K.K Mohan and Ms. Smita Mohan for the Appellant. 
B 
Sarvesh Bisharia, Nidhi Bisaria and S.K. Bisaria for the Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered : 
This appea\ by special leave arises from the order of the Division 
Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on August 7, 1984 in 
C CWP No. 3447/84 dismissing the writ petition in limine. 
The appellant-tenant admittedly was in possession for the past 50 
years, of the demised land. As per the contract, he is liable to pay 1/3rd of 
the produce to the landlord. The respondent, claiming to be General 
Power of Attorney (GPA) of the landlord, filled an application under 
D section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, the 
'Act'). The appellant pleaded that he has paid the rent for all the years 
except for the rabi crop in the year 1978 due to failure of crops in that 
year; he was not obtaining any receipt on account of faith in the GPA of 
the landlord. The primary authority held that on the admission made by 
E the appellant that he had not paid rent, for the year 1978, he is liable to 
be ejected. The appeal was dismissed summarily. The revision, though all 
the contentions of the appellant were heard, has been decided against him. 
As stated earlier, the writ petition was dismissed in limine Thus, this 
appeal by special leave. 
p 
Shri K.K. Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant, contents that the 
view taken by the authorities is not correct in law. Since he has been paying 
the rent regularly and there was no practice of obtaining receipt in proof 
of payment of it, the appellant was under the bona fide belief and did not 
obtain the receipt from the landlord. Tenant frankly admitted that due to 
failure of the crop in the year 1978, he could not pay the share of the crop 
G but subsequently he had paid the same. It is his further contention that 
under Section 9 (a) of the Act read with Section 70 of the Punjab Tenancy 
Act, 1887, on an application filed by the tenant for determination of the 
compensation for improvement for the lands effected by him unless it is 
decided and value of improvements determined and paid, he is not liable 
H to ejectment and, therefore; even the order of ejectment is illegal. 
NEKI v. SATNAR

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