DINA versus THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 244 · Decided: 05-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DINA 
v. 
THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, 
CHANDIGARH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER .'i, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND B.N KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act as amended by Act No. 
15156-Sections 7, 7A & ~Tcnnination of tenancy--Tcnant shall hold land 
C for a minimum tenn of three year.i-Expiry uf three years' tenure-Whether 
tenant is automatically liable to be ejecled-Held, Mr-Tenant would be liable 
to t:jectn1ent on~v on proof of nne or soni!! or all conditions nientioned in 
Sec. 7 or Sec 7A. 
The appellant-tenant wa• sought to be ejected u/s 8 of the Pepsu 
D Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, on the ~round !hat the perrnd of three 
years of the lease had expired and that, therefore, he was liable to be 
ejected. The arder of evictiqn was confirmed in appeal as well as in writ 
petition filed by the appellant. This appeal by special leave had been filed 
against the decision of the High Court. 
E 
The question raised for determination was whether the landlord, 
after expiry of three years' lease gets right of ejectment of a tenant u/s 8 
without recourse to the provisions of sections 7 and ~A of the Act. 
The appellant submitted that if the landlord seeks ejectment of the 
F tenant, he has to satisfy conditions enumerated in Sections 7 and 7 A and 
on expiry of three years, the tenant is not automatically liable to be ejected, 
unless he commits any one of the contraventions mentioned in section 7 
or the landlord requires the land as enumerated in Section 7 ·A or the Act. 
G 
The respondent landlord contended that the object of the Amend-
ment Act is not only to give protection to the tenant and small land holders 
to augment their holding but also to give right to the small tenure holders 
to have the tenant ejected irrespective applicability of all or any of the 
provisions enumerated in section or section 7 A of the Act. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
244 
DINA v. FINANCIAL COMMNR., PB. 
245 
HELD : The object and reasons of the Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural A 
Lands Act enumerates twin purposes, namely to give minimum period of 
tenancy and to protect the tenants against unreasonable eviction and fix 
for allotees a higher limit for reservation of land for personal cnltivation. 
These objects are sought to be achieved by Section 8 and Section 7-A 
respectively. Section 8 accords solitary protection to the tenant of mini-
B 
mum tenure of three years. It says that subject to the provisions of Section 
7, every tenant admitted after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy 
and Agricultural Lands Act, (Second Amendment) Bill, 1956, shall hold 
land for a minimum term of three years. The object, thereby, clearly 
indicates that the tenant shall hold the land for a minimum term of three C 
years but such holding should be subject to his abiding the provisions of 
Section 7 which enumerates diverse conditions subject to which tenancy 
may be terminated by the landlord. Section 7-A gives additional grounds 
to terminate the tenancy in the cases enumerated thereunder. 
Though section 8 gives right to the tenant of the fixity of tenure 
of minimum three years, it would be subject to the conditions 
enumerated in Section 7. If a tenant commits any one or some or all 
the contraventions enumerated in Section 7, despite the fact that section 
8 guarantees minimum term of three years, he is liable to be ejected. 
Though minimum three years tenancy right is protected, it casts cor-
responding duty on the tenant to abide by law mentioned in section 7. 
Equally landlord is entitled to avail of the benefit under Section 7 A to 
have the tenant ejected. Otherwise, a tenant may cause damage to the 
demised land and yet remain in occupation of the land for three years 
which is inconsistent with the object of Section 7 and 8. But on expiry 
of three years' tenure, a tenant is not automatically liable to be ejected 
or merely because the landlord happens to hold lesser holding or on 
any other ground. The tenant would be liable to ejectment only on proof 
D 
E 
F 
of one or some or all the conditions mentioned in Section 7 or 7-A are 
proved by the landlord to the satisfaction of the competent authority/of- G 
ficer. If the landlord wants to avail of the right under section 7-A, he 
necessarily has to prove compliance of the conditions enumerated in 
section 7 A and have the tenant ejected on proof of the grounds 
enumerated therein. Accordingly, de hors Section 7 and 7-A Section 8 
does not give 

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