Faqir Singh vs Gurbachan Singh and Others

Murti Shri Dwarka Dheesh Ji Maharaj Brajman Mandir, defendant No. 4, is the owner of the land in dispute. In May 1960, it leased out this land to Chanan Singh for five years. Subsequently, this lease was extended by another three years, but before the expiry of the said lease, Channan Singh surrendered possession of half of the demised land in favour of defendant No. 4. In December, 1966, defendant No. 4 gave the land surrendered by Channan Singh on lease to Faquir Singh, plaintiff. It was also stipulated that he other land, which was with Chanan Singh and the lease regarding which had to expire in May 1968 would also be given to Faquir Sing. In October 1967, Chanan Singh died and after this death, his sons Gurbachan Singh, Ajmer Singh and Anoop Singh, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 according to Faquir Singh, in November, 1967, forcibly took possession of the land, which had been surrendered by their father Channan Singh and which had been given by defendant No. 4 to Faquir Singh. That led to the filing of the suit, out of which the present revision petition has arisen, by Faquir Singh against defendants Nos. 1 to 4, for possession of the said land and recovery of mesne profits thereof from November 1967 up to the date of the institution of the suit.

The suit was resisted by defendants 1 to 3 on a number of pleas, but in the present revision petition, we are only concerned with one of them, namely, that a suit for mesne profits in respect of the land in suit did not lie in a Civil Court. On this plea on issue - "whether suit for mesne profits in respect of the land in suit lies in a Civil Court" -was framed. This was treated as a preliminary issue and by his order dated 24th June, 1970, the trial Judge decided this issue in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff Faquir Singh has filed the present revision against this order.

The trial Judge was of the view that taking the averments of the plaintiff that he was a lessee under a valid lease-deed executed by defendant No. 4 in respect of the land in dispute and about which the mesne profits were claimed, his claim for mesne profits on the allegations that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were in occupation of the said land without his consent or that of defendant NO. 4 was covered by Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and as such, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the case. The learned Judge further observed that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by Section 77 (3) (n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, hereinafter called the Act.

Section 14 of the Act lays down-

"Payment for land occupied without consent of landlord-

Any person in possession of land occupied without the consent of the landlord shall be liable to pay for the use or occupation of that land at the rate of rent payable in the preceding agricultural year, or if rent was not payable in that year, at such rate as the Court may determine to be fair and equitable."

Section 77 (3) (n) says:

"The following suits shall be instituted in, and heard and determined by Revenue Courts, and no other Court shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter with respect to which any such suit might be instituted:-

X X X X X X

(n) suits by a landlord for arrears or the money-equivalent, or for sums recoverable u/s 14; (or suits for the recovery of such arrears or sums by other persons to whom a right to recover the same has been sold or otherwise transferred.)"

The expression "landlord" has been defined in Section 4 (6) of the Act in these words:-

"''landlord'' means a person under whom a tenant holds land, and to whom the tenant is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for that land."

"Tenant'' has been defined in Section 4 (5) of the Act-

"''tenant'' means a person who holds land under another person and is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other person;......................

According to Section 14, if a person gets into possession of some land without the consent of the landlord, he is liable to pay for the use or occupation of that land at the rate of rent payable in the preceding agricultural year and if the rent was not payable in that year, then at such rate as the Court may determine to be fair and equitable. u/s 77 (3) (n) of the Act, a suit by a landlord for arrears of rent or the money equivalent or for sums recoverable u/s 14 are triable by Revenue Courts only. In the instant case, it is not the plaintiff''s case that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are his tenants and he is their landlord,. Besides, neither the plaintiff nor defendant Nos. 1 to 3 come within the definitions of "landlord" and "tenant" respectively, as given above. According tot he plaintiff, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are trespassers on the land and they have forcibly occupied the said land, even though it had been given on lease to him by defendant No. 4 . In these circumstances, it is not understood as to how a suit for the recovery of mesne profits against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was barred by the provisions of Sections 14 and 77 (3) (n) of the Act.

The result is that this petition succeeds and the impugned order set aside. There will however, be no order as to costs.

Revision allowed.