Giani and Another vs Financial Commissioner, Punjab and Others

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—This petition of Giani and Piare under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, who dismissed their revision petition on 20th of May, 1964.

There is a long history behind the present petition, and it may briefly be set out. The two petitioners, who are big landlords, had purchased some land from Pirthi and Smt. Lali, respondents 5 and 6, respectively. Chandgi Ram, Dhara Singh and Munshi, respondents 2 to 4, as tenants of the petitioners applied on 7th of January, 1957, u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the purchase of the land measuring 5 acres, 3 kanals and 7 marlas, of which they were in occupation as tenants. This application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 28th of August, 1958. However it was decided in appeal by the Collector on 19th of September, 1958, that the respondents were entitled to purchase 324/551 share of the land in dispute, and the case was accordingly remanded to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to ascertain the shares to which they were entitled to purchase under the provisions of section 18 of the Act. The landlords in vain appealed against this order and it was eventually affirmed by the Financial Commissioner, Shri Gyan Singh Kahlon, on 8th of July, 1960. Though other objections were raised before Shri Kahlon, it had not been challenged "that the tenants (present respondents) are entitled u/s 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act to purchase 324/551 share of the total land. As to which landlord will have to part with how much land and in favour of Which tenant exactly, all this will have to be gone into in detail by the Assistant Collector to whom the case has been remanded, after he has heard each party with regard to his exact share". After remand, however, the proceedings lingered, and it appears that the tenants defaulted at some stage in making payment of the usual rent. Promptly, the petitioner-landlords applied for ejectment of the tenants u/s 9 (1) (ii) of the Act, under which "...no land-owner shall be competent to eject a tenant except when such tenant-

(i) * * *

(ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause.

The Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 31st of May, 1962, passed an order of ejectment in these words:

It is, therefore, quite evident that the respondents have been defaulters in payment of rent regularly and are liable to be ejected. I, therefore, order-that they be ejected from the land in dispute from 1st May to 15th June, 1932. The learned Financial Commissioner has allowed to purchase a portion of the land in dispute. That right has, therefore, been conferred by the learned Financial Commissioner on the respondents and I order that by this ejectment, they shall not forego that right. As and when the question of purchase is finally decided, they will be allowed to purchase the land of their share.

It would be manifest from this order that the Assistant Collector was alive to the proceedings initiated u/s 18 of the Act, and culminating in the vindication of the right of the tenants to purchase the land under their tenancy. Indeed, the order of ejectment is somewhat anomalous. It was said that the tenants were to be ejected from the land from 1st of May to 15th of June, 1962. I do not know how the period of ejectment was fixed by the Assistant Collector and what are the legal consequences which flow from it. Be that as it may, the ejectment was made subject to the right of the tenants to purchase the land, which had been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner in his order of 8th of July, 1960. Though it is denied by the tenants, the landlords assert that they obtained possession of the land in pursuance of the ejectment order.

The petitioning landlords then moved the Assistant Co lector 1st Grade that the order of ejectment, having been passed, the tenants'' petition u/s 13 ought to be dismissed, as the relationship of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist. This application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 18th of July. 1963 (Annexure A), and it was directed by him that the application for purchase of land should be processed further in pursuance of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 8th of July, 1960. This order of the Assistant Collector was affirmed by the Collector on 29th of October, 1963 (Annexure B), as also by the Commissioner in revision on 20th of November, 1963 (Annexure C). Finally, the Financial Commissioner upheld this view vide his order of 20th of May, 1964 (Annexure D).

In this petition of the landlords it has been vigorously contended by their learned counsel Shri Prem Chand Jain that the provisions of section 18 of the Act do not envisage a petition by a person, who has, ceased to be a tenant In order to examine this argument the provisions of section 18 may be perused. Under sub-section (1) -

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract, a tenant of a land-owner other than a small land-owner-

(i) who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years, or

(ii) who has been restored to his tenancy under the provisions of this Act and whose periods of continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy immediately before ejectment and immediately after restoration of his tenancy together amounts to six years or more, or

(iii) who was ejected from his tenancy after the 14th day of August, 1947, and before commencement of this Act, and who was in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a period of six years or more immediately before his ejectment, shall be entitled to purchase from the land owner the land so held by him but not included in the reserved area of the land-owner, in the case of a tenant falling within clause (i) or clause (ii) at any time, and in the case of a tenant falling within clause (iii) within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act:

Provided that no tenant referred to in this sub-section shall be entitled to exercise any such right in respect of the land or any portion thereof if he had sublet the land or the portion, as the case may be, to any other person during any period of his continuous occupation, unless during that period the tenant was suffering from a legal disability or physical infirmity, or, if a woman, was a widow or was unmarried:

Provided further * *

(2) * * *

(3) * * *

(4) (a) * * *

(b) On the purchase price or the first instalment thereof, as the case may be, being deposited, the tenant shall be deemed to have become the owner of the land, and the Assistant Collector shall, where the tenant is not already in possession, and subject to the provision of the Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 18S7) put him in possession thereof.

(c) * * *

(5) * * *

(6)* * *

(7) * * *

On analysis of sub-section (1) of section 18, it appears that three categories of tenants are entitled to ask for purchase of the land, which they are holding under a land-owner other than a small landowner. In the first place is a tenant who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years. I will pause here for a moment to say that the wording of the statute lends colour to the argument of the learned counsel for the tenants that a period of six years should be continuous and it is not necessary that it should continue tight up to the time when the order for ejectment is sought. In the second category, a tenant, who is entitled to purchase the land, is one who, though once ejected from his tenancy, has been restored to it. In his case occupation of the land for six years would be taken as an aggregate the period to be computed both before ejectment and after restoration. In other words, if the continuous periods of occupation before ejectment and after restoration aggregate to six years, he would be entitled to purchase the land. Finally, a person, who was ejected from his tenancy between 14th of August, 1947, and 15th of April, 1953, has to be in continuous occupation of the land for six years immediately before his ejectment to entitled to purchase the land.

In the instant case the landlords claim that the order of ejectment was passed between May and June, 1962. It is disputed that the tenants were actually ejected from the land. When tenants ejected under clauses (ii) and (iii) are given the right to purchase the land as tenants, how can it conceivably be urged that the Legislature intended to curtail the rights in respect of clause (i) only to those who have been in occupation right up to the time when ejectment is sought? Even conceding that an effective order of ejectment had been passed against the tenants, the right to purchase, which had been affirmed by the Financial Commissioner in his order of 8th of July, 1960 could not be said to have been abrogated. At best, it came to a temporary cessation. It is submitted by Shri Prem Chand Jain that a tenant could become an owner under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 18 of the Act only when the purchase price had been deposited. No such amount having been deposited, the tenants had not become owners, and, therefore, in the submission of Shri Jain they had ceased to become tenants.

Mr. H.L. Sarin has invited my intention to a Privy Council decision in Kamal Industrial Bank Limited v. Satya Niranjan Shaw AIR 1928 P.C. 227, where it was held that in order to give any working effect to the Act, it is necessary that the words "landlord and tenant" in section 15(1) must include, as they often do in ordinary parlance, ex-landlord and ex-tenant. Even if the extreme position for which Mr. Prem Chand Jain has contended were to be taken as acceptable the principle of the Privy Council decision would become applicable. The true purpose of the Act would be served if the respondents who have once been tenants are treated as tenants u/s 18 of the Act.

On a plain construction of the provisions of the Act, my view is that the respondents having been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in the tenancy for the minimum period of six years are entitled to ask for the purchase and the order whereof affirmed right up to the Financial Commissioner could not have been and has not been abrogated by the subsequent order of ejectment which on the face of it was passed only for a limited period. The condition which was attached by the Assistant Collector himself is perfectly valid and has to be given full meaning and content. In any event, the Revenue authorities have taken a view which is not only reasonable but just in the circumstances of the case and as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others Vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, , an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly he said to be an error apparent on the face of the record" to justify interference in writ proceedings. The error which is said to have been committed is for from self-evident and if it has been established, as observed by the Supreme Court by lengthy and complicated arguments such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ.

There is no force in this petition which fails and is dismissed with costs.