SHYAM LAL versus DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 27-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 930 
SHYAM LAL 
v. 
DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4245 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 27, 2015. 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy- Whether tenant 
of agricultural holding becomes a trespasser after the expiry 
of period of tenancy or continues to be a tenant having 
protection from eviction under the tenancy Jaws - Held: A 
D tenant of agricultural holding does not become a trespasser 
after the expiry of period of tenancy - However, in view of 
law laid down in* Sukhdev Singh's case that after expiry of 
fixed term tenancy of agricultural land, the tenant no longer 
continues to be tenant, the matter is referred to larger Bench 
E for laying down the correct law on the question - Punjab 
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - ss. 9, 14, 14A and 18 
- Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. 
Words and Phrases -
'Tenant' - Meaning of, in the 
F context of Agricultural Tenancy. 
Referring the matter to Larger Bench, the Court 
HELD 1.1 In view of the provisions of Sections 9, 
14, 14A and 18 together of Punjab Security of Land 
G Tenure Act, 1953 a tenant of an agricultural land is 
liable to be evicted only in the manner provided under 
the Act notwithstanding any contract on the basis of 
which tenant occupied possession of the land for the 
H 
930 
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA 
931 
GARIB DASS 
purpose of cultivation. Action for eviction of a tenant A 
can be taken before a Revenue Authority to whom 
power and jurisdiction has been conferred by the said 
Act. [Para 19] (944-H; 945-A-B] 
1.2 In view of various tenancy laws applicable in B 
the State of Punjab and the law discussed by this Court 
and the High Court, the trial court, the appellate court 
and the High Court have committed error of law in 
holding that a tenant of agricultural holding becomes 
a trespasser after the expiry of period of tenancy. The C 
High Court and the lower courts have failed to consider 
that the agricultural tenancy is governed by the State 
Tenancy Laws which are special Acts for the purpose 
of regulating the tenancy and protecting the tenants 
from eviction without following the procedure provided D 
in those State Laws. The procedure for eviction of 
tenant in occupation of building by approaching the 
civil court under Rent Control Act will not.be applicable 
for evicting the tenants holding agricultural land. It is 
the Revenue Court specially empowered to take action E 
for eviction of tenant in the manner provided under the 
Act notwithstanding any contract on the basis of which 
the tenant occupied possession of the agricultural land 
for the purpose of cultivation. [Para 32] (953-C-G] 
F 
2. However in* Sukhdev Singh's case, a Bench of 
this Court on consideration of the provisions of Punjab 
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was of the opinion 
that after the expiry of fixed term tenancy in respect of 
agricultural land, the tenancy gets terminated by efflux G 
of time and person occupying the lease premises no 
longer remains tenant. The Court is not in agreement 
with the view taken by this Court in* Sukhdev Singh's 
case. Therefore to maintain judicial discipline, the H 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench for laying 
down a correct law. [Paras 33 and 34) [953-H; 954-A-B] 
B 
Sukhdev Singh (D) thr. Lrs. & ors. vs. Puran & Ors. 
2015 (3) SCALE 144 - held inapplicable 
V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodai Ammal 1980 (1) SCR 
334: (1979) 4 sec 214; R. v. Bhupal Prasad VS. State of 
AP. & Ors. 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 658: (1995) 5 sec 698; 
Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 34; 
c Sanwat Singh vs. Zail Singh 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 275: 
(1997) 9 SCC 468; Tulsi vs. Paro 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 535: 
(1997) 2 SCC 706; Ram Lal vs. Darshan Lal and Ors. 
(2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427; Mandir Jhoke Hari Har & Ors. 
vs. Ajit Kaur & Ors. 1977 PLJ 315; Rameshwar vs. Sheo 
o Chand & Ors. 1981 PLJ 362 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(1971) 1 sec 34 
referred to. 
Para 28 
E 
1980 (1) SCR 334 
referred to. 
Para 25 
Para 31 
Para 26 
F 
G 
(2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427 referred to. 
1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 658 referred to. 
1977 PLJ 315 
1981 PLJ 362 
referred to. 
referred to. 
Para 8 
Para 8 
2015 (3) SCALE 144 
held inapplicable. Para 27 
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 275 referred to. 
1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 535 referred to. 
Para 29 
Para 30 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:· Civil Appeal No. 
4245 of 2012. 
H 
From th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.