SUBHASH CHAND versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 1087 · Decided: 16-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1087 
SUBHASH CHAND 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1857 of 2003) 
DECEMBER 16, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.) 
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy: 
A 
B 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - ss. 9(1)(ii), c 
14-A and 10(2) - Liability of tenant to be evicted - Application 
for recovery of rent and ejectment of tenant -Assistant 
Collector holding that the application was not maintainable -
Held: It was an application u/s. 14-A of 1953 and not a suit ul 
s. 77(3) of the 1887 Act - Assistant Collector followed the 
D 
procedure laid down in s. 10(2) for ejectment of a tenant -
Tenant did not pay rent for the land as he was pursuing his 
claim of occupancy rights in respect of the land and if it was 
allowed, he would not be liable for rent - Thus, tenant had 
sufficient cause for not paying the rent for the land -
Meanwhile the tenant deposited the rent - Tenant not liable 
E 
to be evicted uls. 9(1)(ii) - Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 - s. 
77(3). 
The appellant's mother filed an application for 
recovery of rent and ejectment of respondent no. 4, the 
F 
tenant, stating that the latter did not pay the rent. 
Respondent No. 4 pleaded that he had filed a suit for 
declaration of his occupancy rights, which was decreed 
in his favour and, thus, he was not liable to pay rent. The 
Assistant Collector, First Grade in his order dated 
G 
10.03.1995 observed that respondent No.4 had been 
declared as the occupancy tenant by order dated 
07.04.1981 but on appeal, the Collector held that 
respondent no. 4 had ceased to be the occupancy 
1087 
H 
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A tenant; that the appeal of respondent No. 4 was 
dismissed by the Commissioner and his revision petition 
was dismissed by and the Financial Commissioner. 
Meanwhile, respondent No. 4 deposited the rent. The 
Assistant Collector held that the application filed by the 
B appellant's mother was not maintainable since notice in 
Form 'N' was not served on respondent No.4 and the rent 
had been paid by him. The appellant's mother filed an 
appeal but the Collector dismissed the same. However, 
the Commissioner allowed the revision of appellant's 
C mother holding that the suit had actually been filed under 
Section 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act and, therefore, 
no notice in Form 'N' was required to be given; and that 
respondent No.4 had admitted in his written statement 
that he had not paid the rent and had deposited the rent 
0 after the suit for recovery of rent and for eviction was 
filed. Aggrieved, respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition 
and the Financial Commissioner allowed the same. The 
appellant then filed a writ petition. The High Court 
dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the appellant filed 
the instant appeal. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Clause (i) of Section 14-A of the Punjab 
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 makes it clear that 
F where the land-owner desires to eject a tenant under the 
Act, he has to apply in writing to the Assistant Collector, 
First Grade, having jurisdiction, who would thereafter 
proceed as provided for in Section 10(2) of the 1953 Act. 
Clause (ii) of Section 14-A states that where a land-owner 
desires to recover arrears of rent from a tenant he has to 
G apply in writing to the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, 
who would thereupon send a notice in the form 
prescribed, to the tenant either to deposit the rent or 
value thereof or give proof of having paid it or of the fact 
H 
SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE OF Hi\RYANA & ORS. 1089 
that he is not liable to pay the whole or part of the rent, 
A 
or of the fact of the landlord's refusal to receive the same 
or to give a receipt; and after summary determination in 
accordance with Section 10(2) of the Act, if the Assistant 
Collector finds that the tenant has not paid or deposited 
the rent, he would eject the tenant summarily and put the 
B 
land-owner in possession of the land. Thus, for ejectment 
of a tenant under the 1953 Act or for recovery of arrears 
of rent from a tenant, the procedure laid down in Section 
14-A read with Section 10(2) of the Act has to be followed. 
[Para 8] [1097-G-H; 1098-A-D] 
C 
1.2. The application of the mother of the appellant 
was for ejectment of the tenant and for recovery of 
arrears of rent and was really an application under 
Section 14-A of the 1953 Act and not a suit under Section 
77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 188

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