Chitru vs Savitri Devi

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The appeal here arises from a suit filed by Smt. Savitri Devi, seeking a decree for possession of the land held by Chitru.

The facts relevant to this matter are that Chitru was in possession of the land in suit as a tenant. On April 30, 1965 he applied for the purchase of this land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). During the pendency of this application, Smt. Savitri Devi sought his ejectment from the land. These proceedings culminated in an order of ejectment being passed against Chitru on May 31, 1967 and in pursuance thereof he was actually ejected from the land on April 11, 1968.

The case proceeds, that after his ejectment, Chitru forcibly dispossessed Smt. Savitri Devi from the land in suit. Chitru was then prosecuted and convicted under Section 488 of the Indian Penal Code. He has, however, continued in possession of the land in suit ever since. It was in these circumstances that Smt. Savitri Devi sought a decree for possession.

As has been mentioned earlier, Chitru had applied for the purchase of the land in suit under Section 18 of the Act. It is now well settled, as was held by the Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Dass etc, v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab etc., 1972 Cur L.J. 83, that the relevant date to determine whether there is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is the date when the application under Section 18 of the Act is made. If on that date that relationship subsists, the tenant is entitled to purchase the land no matter that an order of eviction is passed against him at a later date.

The Supreme Court in Rameshwar and others v Jot Ram and others, AIR 1976 S.C. 49, expressed a similar view; while dealing with the provision of Section 18 of the Act by holding that, it was basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date of suitor institutes the legal proceedings and later development cannot defeat his right.

The question of Chitru being entitled to purchase the land held by him, as a tenant, arose in Civil Writ No. 2690 of 1980 (Smt. Savitri Devi v. State of Haryana) decided today i.e. on March 28, 1984. The question there arose whether Chitru had lost his right to purchase land under Section 18 of the Act consequent upon the death of the original landlord Devi Singh as Smt. Savitri Devi, his widow and their children had on his death became small landowners as defined in the Act. The Collector and Commissioner had decided against the tenant Chitru on this matter, but in revision, the Financial Commissioner set aside both these orders. The order of the Financial Commissioner was upheld in the writ petition referred to above. It follows, therefore, that Chitru was entitled to purchase the land in suit subject to the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana of February 26, 1980 (Annexure P2) to the above Writ Petition. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by Chitru must be accepted and consequently the order of the lower appellate Court is hereby set aside. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

D.S. Tewatia, J. I agree.