KAPUR CHAND JAIN versus B. S. GREWAL & OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 06-11-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KAPUR CHAND .JAIN 
v. 
B. S. GREW AL & OTHERS 
November 6, 1964 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J.; K. N. WANCHOO AND 
M . 
M. HIDAYATU.LLAH, JJ.] 
The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953), ss. 9(l)(ii) and 
. !4.A(i) and (ii)-Non-payment of rent-Whetlier without sufficient cause-
.IJetermination--If conduct prior 10 Act can be considered. 
The appellant and respondent were the tenant and land-lord of certain 
agricultural lands to which the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Ac~ 1953, 
applied. 
The appellant tried to avoid payment of rent for each year of 
the lease period (1951-1955), under one pretext or the other, and for 
every year recoveries of rent were only made through the court. 
After 
the period of lease expired, the appellant continued to h<>ld over without 
paying rent. 
So the respondent filed two applications to the appropriate 
authorities, one for arrears <>f rent under s. 14A(ii) and the other for 
eviction under S, 14A(i). on the ground, inter alia, specified in s. 9( 1) (ii) 
that the a;>pellant had failed to pay the rent regularly, with<>ut sufficient 
cause. 
On the application for rent, the appellant was asked to pay the 
arrears which he did within the time fixed. 
The application for eviction 
was dismissed, but on appeal by the respondent, the appellant was ordered 
to be evicted. 
The appellant's further appeal application for revision and 
petition to the l-ligh Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the C~onstitution were 
>tll dismissed. 
In the appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended that, (i) s. 9( I) (ii) 
applies only prospectively and therefore the conduct of the tenant, prior 
10 the enactIT'.ent of ·s. 14/\ in 1955, could not be taken into account for 
Jeterrnini!'lg that there was not sufficient c::use for non-payment, and (ii) 
as the app~llant had paid the arre:1rs w·ithin the time fL"{ed he could not be 
evicted. 
HELD : Though the appellant could not he evicted under s. 14A(ii I 
his case wiu ~"vercd liy s. J 4A(i) and his eviction could be ordered because, 
the irrc~u!arity in payment was patent and there was no sufficient cause. 
142 A] 
The necessary condition for the application of s. 9( I) (ii) may com-
n1ence even . before the Act came into force and past conduct which is as 
• relevant for the clause as conduct after the coming into force of the Act, 
cannot he overlooked. 
A statute is not applied retrospectively 
merely 
because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a mo~enl 
prior to its passing. [41 A-C] 
The scheme of the Act shows that els. (i) and (ii) of s. 14A are 
entirely different and that there is no inconsistency between them. Clause 
(ii) deals with eviction as punishment for non-compliance with an order 
to deposit arrears of rent within the time fixed for payment. whereas 
cl. (i) deals with eviction for any of the reasons given in s. 9(1), one 
of which is nonwpayment of rent regularly without sufficient cause, under 
1. 9(1) (ii) [41 D-El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 833 of 
1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the order, dated March 9, 1961 
of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 291 of 1961.. 
A 
• 
•
c 
D 
E 
\ 
F 
G 
H 
KAPUR CHAND v. GREWAL (Hidayatul/ah, J.) 
37 
A 
B. R. L. Iyengar and T. S. Venkataraman, for the appellant. 
Bishan Narain, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for respon-
dent No. 4. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Hidayatullah, J. 
The appellant obtained on lease from the 
4th respondent (Raja Charanjit Singh) 208 canals of agricultural 
land for five years commencing from Rabi 1951 to Kharif 1955 
on an annual rent of Rs. 7,500. The lease deed was registered 
and was executed on November 20, 1950. The appellant paid a 
sum of Rs. 7,500 as advance rent for one year. There was a 
C tube well on the land and one of the terms of the lease was that 
the Raja would put the tube well into working order and the 
lease was to commence on the day this was done. The tube well 
was repaired on July 11, 1951 and the lease is said to have com-
menced on that day. According to the appellant the tube well did 
not deliver the right quantity of water and that led to certain 
D 
disputes. 
The appellant did not pay rent for the subsequent years. On 
August 15, 1952 the Raja filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,500 
as rent for Rabi and Kharif, 1951. He claimed that Rs. 7,500 
paid to him was to be retained as deposit to be adjusted towards the 
E 
final payment. The appellant resisted this dem

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