LexMUNSHI & ORS. versus RICHPAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MUNSHI & ORS.
v.
RICHP AL & ORS.
February 17, 1977
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Pepsu Tenancy and Agri'cultural Lands Act, 1955-Ss. 7 and 1A--Scope of.
Section 7 of the Peosu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, w?.ich
deals with termination of tenancy, provides that no tenancy shall ~<! tennr!lat-
ed except on any of the grounds mentioned i_n the ~ection. Section 7 gives
additional grounds for termination of tenancy 1n certain cases.
Respondent no. 2 sold his land to the appellants. Claiming that he W3;S
C
a non-occupancy tenant under respondei:tt no. _2, re~pondent no. 1 filed a su~t
for possession of the land by ore-emption.
lhe trial Court decreed the suit
in favour of the olaintiff-ore-emotor holding that he had been a tenant-at-
will on the date of the sale and that he was forcibly dispossessed after the
sale.
The District Judge as well as the High Court upheld the trial Court's de-
cision.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the pre-emptor h~d . to
prove his subsisting right of pre-emption on the date of sale, date ~f instltu-
tion of the suit and date of passing of the decree and since the plaintiff had
failed to file a suit for recovery of possession unJer s. 50 of the Punjab Ten~
ancy Act, 1887 his right and title had been extinguished.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : The plaintiff cannot but be deemed to be the tenant of the suit
land on the date of sale as well as on all other tnaterial dates and is thus fully
qualified and entitled to pre-empt the land. [5H]
E
The point now sought to be raised was not raised by the appel}ant in the
Courts below. In view of the provisions of ss. 7 and 71\ of the Pepsu Ten-
ancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, which have an over-riding effect and
the decision of this Court in Rikki Rain & Anr v. Rain Ku111ar & Ors [19751
l
2 SCC 318 it C$lnilOt be disputed that an order Or decree dire·cting eviction Of
a tenant is necessary to be obtained to bring about a determination of
the
tenancy. A fortiori, the person who has been in possession of the land with
the. right to possess it continlies to hold the la-nd and be a tenant in spite of
haVIng been wrongfully- put out of possession specially if he has initiated
proceedings for recovery of possession. [3E & 5F]
Since in the i~tai:t case, it has been concurrently found by the Courts
G
below that the plamtiff-pre-emptor was a tenant of the suit land
on
the
da.te of sale an~ it has not been alleged that his tenancy was thereafter deter-
mined or termJnated on any of the grounds set out in ss. 7 and 7 A of the
Act and tlte plaintiff had applied to the Tehsildar for restoration of possession,
he could not 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.
[5G]
Rikki Ram & Anr. v. Ram Kumar & Ors. fl975] 2 S.C.C. 318 followed.
H
B!taman Das v. Chet Ram [19711 2 S.C.R. 640 and Dindyal & Anr. v.
Rajaram (19711 1 S.C.R. 298 referred to.
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 3 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2054/69.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
5-8-1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second
Appeal No. 983 of 1969).
.
V. C. Mahajan, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor and Miss Kamlesh Bansal,
for the appellants.
.
Ram Sarup and !-{. A. Gupta, for respoudent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave which is directed
against the judgment and order dated September 24, 1969, of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, passed in R.S.A. No.
983 of 1969 arises in the following circumstances :-
Bhawani Dass, respondent No. 2 herein, who owned agricultural
land measuring 50 kanals and 6 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 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 (Ext. 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 clanse
Fourthly of section 15(1 )(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913
(Punjab Act 1 of 1913) which stExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.