RAJ KANTA versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 07-05-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1006 
RAJ KANTA 
v. 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ANR. 
May 7, 1980 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Punjab Security nf Land Tenures Act, 1953, 
Section 
9 
intetpretation-
Words and Phrast.•s, tneaning of the term 'regularly' in Section 9(i) (if) of the 
Act-Whether a 'single default' in payment of rent would attract tlie provi'sions 
of Section 9(1) (ii). 
Pera Ram, Ganga Ram, Bhago and Kalu Ram were the tenants of agricul-
tural land owned by Mrs. Raj Kanta, the appellant. The tenants made sepa-
rate ~pplications under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures1 Act, 
1953, on September 4, 1961 for purchasing the land held by them from the 
land ovn1er. These applications werei allowed by the Assistant . Collector on· 
October 31, 1961. 
Accordingly, the tenants deposited the first 
ins.talment m 
Nove.mber 1961. Ultin1ately, however, the tCnants did not pay the rent of the 
respective holdings for Kharif 1961. It is common ground that the last date 
by which the rent for Kharif 1961 was payable by the tenants to the land 
owner \Vas January 15, 1962 and thatl the tenant did not pay the. rent and did 
not show sufficient cause for the same. Jn view of the default, the land owner 
filed separate applications under s. 9(1) (ii) of the Act on the ground that as 
the tenants had failed to pay the rent regularly without sufficient cause, they 
v;·e~e entitled to be ejected by the land owner. 
The applications for ejectment 
\ve!e, hov;·ever, dismissed .. but on appeal the Collector allowed the appeal:s by his 
order dated May 31, 1962. Second appeals preferred by the tenants in 
the 
ejectment proceedings were dismissed by an order dated 5-11-62 of the Com-
missioner and ultimately upheld by the Financial Commissioner by 
his Order 
dated December 21, 1962. 
Having failed before the Revenue courts~ the tenants-respondents filed a writ 
petition in the High Court which was- heard by a single judge. But in the case 
of Kalu Ram the Financial Commissioner allowed the petition and rejected the 
prayer for his ejectment by the land owner as a result of whlch the land owner 
filed a writ petition in the High Court. All the petitions were consolidated 
and , heard together, by the single Judge who allowed the writ petition of the 
tenants and quashed the order of the Financial Commissioner directing eject-
ment of the tenan~. The writ petition of the land owner against Kalu Rin1 
was, however, disntlssed. Hence, the four appea{s by the land owner-appellant 
to this Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : I. The Punjab Security of Land .Tenures Act 1953 is a piece of 
social legislation meant to ameliorate the lot ~ the tenants by conferring on 
them the status of a permanent tenancy or the,rights to purchase the land on 
payment of instalments. At the. same time, the landlords within a very limited 
sphere have been assured protection in respect of the rights which they possess 
in the ]and and have been given thei right to eject the 
tenants on specified 
grounds which are contained in the various sub-clauses of section 9' of the Act. 
Sub-Clause. (ii) is one such sub-clause. This right was absolute and could not 
I r 
' 
• 
RAJ KANTA v. FINANCIAL COMMR· 
1007 
be curtailed by interpreting clause (ii) of section 9(1) of the Act through a 
A 
process of twisting the law and doing' violence to the language of the section, 
especially when it admits of no ambigoity. 
[1010 A-C, IOI! A-Bl 
. )..._ 
Bhagiruth Ram Chand v. State of Punjab and Ors., A.I.R. 
1954 Punjabi 
\ 
-~ 
' ' 
167: referred to. 
t 2. The word 'regular' which is derived from the word 'regula' which means 
'rule', means in a regular manner, methodically, in due order and postulates a 
state of symmetry, consistency and uniformity. 
In other words, 
'regular' 
means a consistent course of conduct without any break or breach. 
[1011 B, D, F & 1012 A] 
Arab Bank v. Ross, [1952] 2 Q.B.D., 216; Hc11nmond v. 
London 
County 
Council, [1931] Chancery 540; quoted with approval. 
3. Although the Act is heavily loaded in favour of the rights of the tenants 
so as to confer on them several important benefits and privileges yet as 
the 
Act is confiscatory in nature, so far as the landlord is concerned, it should. be 
strictly construed within the limited spherei . ina5mnch as the landlord is 
con-
ferred limited grounds on which ejectment is permissible under s. 9 of the Act 
which appears to be a safety valve for 

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