TEKAN ARD OTHERS versus GANESHI

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 386 · Decided: 22-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

191Z • 
386 SUl'itEME CXJURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. 
TEKAN ARD OTHERS 
v. 
GANESH I 
(P. B. GA.TEXDRAGADKAH, A. K. SARKAR and 
K. ~. WANCHOO, J,J.) 
I.andlord an,/, Tenant-Smtrily of land 1'enures-land-
owner-Lcssee-Jlortgage-Teuanf -1.rJJser; not lando1cner-No · 
right to 
ej1:ct-Punjab Security of Land 'l'F.nures Act, 19.53 
(Punj"'' JO of l!Jo3), ss. 2 '.I), 9 (l); 14A ([)-East Punjab Dis-
plar.ed l'ersons /,rmd Re,.ettlcmui! Ac!, 194fl (East Punjab .16 
of 1!14!1), •· 2-Pnnjah /,and Revwat Acl, ISS7 (Punjab 17 of 
1887), .<s . .1 (2) 4 ('!)- Punjolr Tenancy Act, 1887 (Punja/) ]Ii of 
1881). 
The appellant is a lessee from the owner of the Janel and 
hi" lease comprises a large area of land including the land oi 
which the rc•pondent is the tenant. 
The appellant applied 
to the Assistant Collector under s. 14A (I) read with s. 9 (I} 
of the Punjab Security of Land ·rr.nurcs Act for the ejectment 
of the respondent on the ground that the appellant was a land 
o\vner and he required the land for his O\vn cultivation. The 
application \\'as allov.·cd. 1,hc responJcnt thereupon appealed to 
the Collector alleginl.{ as the main ground that only a landowner 
could dispossess a tcnant·at-v..·ill and that since the appellant 
was not a landowner within the meaning of S· 2 (I) of the Act 
was r.ot entitled IU ask for ejr.r.tment under s. 14A (I). The 
Collector accepted this contention and allowed the appeal. 
'!'hereafter the appellant appealed to the Cornmissioner who 
allowed the appeal on the ground that a lessee being like a 
mortgagee with possession was a landowner for all purposes. 
On revision the Financial Commissioner Jield that the appcl-
1.ant was not a lanrlowner anti therefore not entitled to cject-
mr.nt. 
The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave. 
The only contention that \-.·a:i urged in the appeal was that 
appellant was a lando\vner \vithin the meaning of s. 2(1). 
H(',fd, a'> a lessee the appellant holds land under another 
person na1nely the O\Vner of the land fro1n whom he has taken 
the lease and is liable to pay rent. l'he app~llant therefore be-
ing a tenant \Vithin s.4 (5) of the Punjab 1,enancy Act cannot 
he a lando\..-ner under s.3(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 
or a landowner \\·ithin the mean in~ of s. 2 ( 1) of the Punjab 
Sc'.Curity of Land Tenures :\ct. Hence he is not entitled to 
eject the respondent. 
.. 
-
3S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 387 
CrVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No 367 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgme~t 
and order dated November 23, 1957, of t,he Add1-
tion<il Commissioner Punjab, in Revision No. 143 
of 1956-57. 
I. M. Lal and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appel. 
lants. 
Achhru Ram and K. L. Mehta, for the respon-
de t. 
· 
1962. February 22. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special 
leave from the order of the Financial Commissioner 
Punjab in respect of the application made by the 
appellant under s. 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of 
Land Tenures Act, No, X of 1953, (hereinafter 
referred to as the Act), read with s. 9 (l) thereof, 
for ejectment of the respondent, on th6 ground that 
he was a smaH landowner. The appellant claimed 
that he was the landowner and the respondent was 
a tenant-at-will under him. He therefore claimed 
ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he 
had less than thirty standard acres and required the 
land for his oW-U cultivation. The application was 
filed before the Assistant Collector who held that 
the respondent was liable to ejectment and allowed 
the application. Thereupon there was an appeal 
by the respondent to the Collector and it was urged 
there that only a landowner could dispossess a 
tenant-at-will under s. 14-A, (i) and as the appellant 
was not a landowner but merely a landlord of the 
respondent he was not entitied to the benefit of 
s. 14-A(i). The Collector accepted this contention 
and held that the appellant was not a landowner 
and therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the 
a,Ptllication fOl' ejectment. The appellant then went 
1962 
Tekan 
v. 
Gamshi 
Wanc1ioo J 
196;! 
1tk.G11 
v. 
Ga11t1lzi 
Wa11clioo J. 
' . 
388 
SUPRE~IE COURT REPORTS (!!JOO] SUPP. 
in appeal to the Commissioner. It may be men-
tioned that the appellant is a lessco from the owner 
of the land and his lease comprises a larger area 
of land including the land of which the rospondent 
is the tenant. Thu contention on behalf of the 
appellant before the 

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