Shiv Ram vs Lal Chand and Others

J.N. Wazir, C.J.—This is a Defendant's revenue second appeal and arises out of a suit instituted by one Lal Chand against Shiv Ram and

Ors. for declaration, that the sale, of occupancy right in land made by occupant tenants in favour of Shiv Ram vendee was void and for ejectment

of Defendant No. 1 from the land in dispute. The Plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the Settlement Officer on 29th August, 1961. The Plaintiff

appealed and a Single Judge of this Court allowed the appeal and decreed the Plaintiff's suit. The Defendant has now come up in appeal to this

Court.

The only point canvassed before us on behalf of the Defendant is that u/s 66 of the Tenancy Act there is no provision for passing a decree for

ejectment against transferee and the lower appellate Court had erred in decreeing the claim of the Plaintiff for ejectment against Defendant No. 1

from the suit land. It is common ground between the parties that the sale was of occupancy holding measuring 19 kanals and 6 Sirsais in survey

Nos. 159 and 432/169 with 1/3 of the building standing thereon for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- in favour of Shiv Ram Defendant by means of a

sale deed dated 23rd April, 1958. It is not disputed that the mandatory provisions of Section 60 of the Tenancy Act were not complied with

before the sale was effected by occupancy tenants in favour of Shiv Ram, Defendant No. 1. Lal Chand one of the landlords filed a suit to avoid,

the sale on the ground that the provisions of Section 60 of the Tenancy Act were not complied with and sought ejectment of the transferee

Defendant No. 1. The question for consideration is whether or not the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree for ejectment against Defendant No. 1. The

learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that u/s 66 the sale of occupancy holding can be avoided on the ground of non-compliance of the

provisions of Section 60 of the Tenancy Act but there was no provision in Section 66 for making a decree for ejectment against a transferee.

Section 66 of Tenancy Act reads as under:

Transfers of occupancy right not made in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall be voidable on suit instituted within six years of the date

of the transfer at the instance of the landlord or in the cases mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 60 at the instance of either of the landlord or

of the occupancy-tenant of grade A.

Under this section sale of occupancy rights can be avoided by a landlord if the mandatory provision of Section 60 are not complied with before the

sale, is effected. Clause (f) of Sub-section (3) of Section 85 of the Tenancy Act runs as follows:

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:

First Group

(f) suits by a landlord u/s 66 to set aside a transfer made of a right of occupancy or to dispossess a person to whom such a transfer has been

made, or for both purposes.

Reading Section 66 and Clause (f) of Sub-section (3) of Section 85 together it is abundantly clear that the Legislature has provided the landlord

with a right to avoid sale if it is in contravention of Section 60 of the Tenancy Act and to dispossess a transferee to whom such' transfer has been

made. If occupancy tenants sold land without complying with the provisions of Section 60 and possession of the land was still with them, the

Plaintiff landlord need not add a relief for the ejectment of the vendee in the suit but sue for declaration alone that the sale is void u/s 66 of the

Tenancy Act, but if the possession has passed to the vendee the landlord is fully entitled to claim ejectment of the vendee under Clause (f) of Sub-

section (3) of Section 85 of the Tenancy Act. After the sale is avoided by the landlord u/s 66 the vendee iS merely a trespasser and the Plaintiff

landlord is entitled to dispossess him by a suit u/s 85(3)(f).

It the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is accepted that under Clause (f) of Sub-section (3) of Section 85 of the Tenancy Act the

Plaintiff landlord is not entitled to a decree for ejectment then the words ""to dispossess a person to whom such a transfer has been made"" would

become superfluous and redundant. It is well settled that in construing the provisions of a statute Courts should be slow to adopt a construction

which tends to make any part of the statute meaningless or ineffective. In support of this view reliance may be placed on Sirajul Haq Khan and

Others Vs. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. and Others, . The Plaintiff landlord in the present case will not get full relief merely by seeking

declaration to the effect that the sale made by the occupancy tenants in contravention of Section 60 of the Tenancy Act is void.

The object of Section 66 is to help the landlord in purchasing occupancy rights from his occupancy tenants and if they sell occupancy rights to a

stranger without notice to the landlord in accordance with the provision of Section 60, he can avoid that sale u/s 66 and Clause (f) of Sub-section

(3) of Section 85 of the Tenancy Act and also claim possession from the transferee. This object will be completely defeated if it is held that the

words ""to dispossess a person to whom such a transfer has been made"" occurring in Clause (f) of Sub-section (3) of Section 85 are redundant and

ineffective. In our opinion on reading of Section 66 and Clause (f) of Sub-section (3) of Section 85 together, there can be no manner of doubt that

the Plaintiff landlord is entitled to a decree for ejectment as the transfer of occupancy rights is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 60

of the Tenancy Act, The lower appellate Court, therefore, has rightly decreed Plaintiff's claim for possession and we see no force in this appeal

which is dismissed with costs.

S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J.

I agree.