http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: BHARTU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RANDHIR SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/01/1985

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  413            1985 SCR  (2) 638  1985 SCC  (1) 733        1985 SCALE  (1)98

ACT:       Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1955 Sections 7 7A and 8.

HEADNOTE:            Whether landowner has to wait for a term of three years before terminating tenancy.       The  PEPSU Tenancy  and Agricultural  Lands Act,  1955 which was  originally passed in 1955 and amended in 1955 was again amended  in  1956.  The  Act  purports  to  amend  and consolidate the  law relating  to tenancies  of agricultural land and to provide for certain measures of land reforms.           A tenancy may be terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act or on any of the grounds enumerated in section 7; namely non-payment of rent within a period of six months, subleting  without  written  consent,  cessation  of personal cultivation  of the  tenant, user  of the land in a manner which  is likely  to render  it unfit, and refusal by the tenant on demand in writing to execute a kabuliyat.        In   the  case   of  tenancies   subsisting  at   the commencement of  the Pepsu  Tenancy and  Agricultural  Lands (Second Amendment)  Act, 1956,  section 7-A provided for two grounds for  termination  of  tenancy  in  addition  to  the grounds specified  in section  7, namely,  (i) that the land comprising the tenancy has been reserved by the landlord for his personal  cultivation in  accordance with the provisions of Chapter-II,  and (ii) that the landowner owns 30 standard acres or  less  of  land  and  the  land  falls  within  his permissible limit.        In   the  case  of  tenancies  commencing  after  the commencement of Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act,  1956, section  8 provided  that the minimum term of  the tenancy  shall be  three years,  subject to the provisions of section 7.       In  the appeals to this Court on the question, whether in the  case of  tenancies commencing after the commencement of  the   Pepsu  Tenancy   and  Agricultural  Lands  (Second Amendment) Act,  1956, section  8 provided for an additional ground for  terminating a tenancy, namely, the expiry of the period of tenancy provided it is not less than three years. 639       Dismissing the Appeals,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

^       HELD:  The proper  way of  looking at  the  scheme  of sections 7,  7-A and  8 is  to hold  that  while  section  7 enumerates  the   grounds  on   which  any  tenancy  may  be terminated, section  7-A provides  for additional grounds on which tenancies  subsisting at the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and  Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 may be terminated and section 8 provides for the termination of a  tenancy commencing after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and  Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 apart from  the grounds  mention d in section 7. That is why section  7  itself  uses  the  word  ’no  tenancy  shall  be terminated except  in accordance  with the provisions of the Act or  except on  any of the following grounds.’ that is to say, a  tenancy may  be terminated  either  on  the  grounds mentioned in  section 7 or in accordance with the provisions of the Act. [642A-C]

JUDGMENT:       CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal Nos. 803, 834 to 83J of 1971.       From the Judgment and Order dated 4th January, 1971 of Punjab &  Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Letters Patent 1 Appeal No. 227 of 1970.       T.  S. Krishna  Murthy Iyer  and E.C. Agarwala for the Appellant.       V.  C. Mahajan, Mrs. Urmila Sirur and Sanjive Puri for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by       CHINNAPPA  REDDY, J. Though we confess that during the course of  the hearing  we did feel somewhat perplexed as to the proper  cons- traction to be placed on the provisions of secs. 7,  7 A  and 8  of the  PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,  1955, on  second thoughts we think that only one conclusion   is   permissible.   The   PEPSU   Tenancy   and Agricultural Lands  Act, 1955 which was originally passed in 1955 and amended in 1955, was again amended in 1956. The Act purports to  amend  and  consolidate  the  law  relating  to tenancies of  agricultural land  and to  provide for certain measures  of   land  reforms.   Section  3  broadly  defines "permissible limit"  for the  purposes of the Act to mean 30 standard acres  of land  and where such 30 standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed 80 acres, such 80 acres. Section  5  enables  every  land  owner  owning  land exceeding  30   standard  acres   to  select   for  personal cultivation from the land held by him in the State in parcel or parcels of land not exceed- 640 ing in  the aggregate the permissible limit and reserve such land for personal cultivation by intimating his selection in the prescribed  form and  manner to the Collector. Section 6 requires the  Collector to  notify the  particulars  of  all lands reserved  for personal  cultivation  of  a  land-owner under sec.  5. Chapter IV-A (secs. 32-A to 32-A) deals  with ceiling on  land and  acquisition and  disposal  of  surplus area. In  particular sec. 32-A provides that notwithstanding anything to  the contrary  in any  law,  customs,  usage  or agreement, no  person shall  be entitled  to own  or hold as land-owner or  tenant land  under his  personal  cultivation within  the   State  which  exceeds  in  the  aggregate  the permissible limit  The subsequent provisions provide for the determination of the surplus area and sec. 32-E provides for the vesting of surplus area in the State Government. We have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

to note here that sec. 32-DD provides that tenancies created after the  commencement of  the 1956  amendment in  any area which could  have been  declared as  surplus area have to be declared for the purposes of determining the surplus area of any person.  Section 32-F vests the Collector with the power to take  possession of  surplus area and sec. 32-J describes the modes  of disposal  of surplus  area. We  are not really concerned with all those provisions for the present purpose. Chapter III  of  the  Act  deals  with  "General  rights  of tenancy". Section  7 prescribes  that no  tenancy  shall  be terminated except  in accordance  with the provisions of the Act or  except on  any of the following grounds. The grounds mentioned are  non-payment of  rent  within  period  of  six months after it falls due, subletting without the consent in writing of the land-owner, cessation of personal cultivation of the  tenant in  the manner and to the extent customary in the locality, user of the land or any part of it in a manner which is  likely to  render   it unfit  for the  purpose for which the  land was leased and the refusal by the tenant, on demand in  writing, to  execute a  kabuliyat agreeing to pay rent in  accordance with  the statutory provisions. What has to be  particularly noticed  is that  the tenancy  cannot be terminated except  in accordance  with the provisions of the Act or  except on any of the grounds mentioned in sec. 7. In other words, a tenancy  may  be terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act or on any of the grounds mentioned in sec. 7. Therefore, it means  that the  tenancy may be terminated on any grounds mentioned in  sec. 7 or in accordance with the provisions of the Act  provided, of  course, other  provisions of  the Act provide for  the termination  of tenancy.  In  the  case  of tenancies  subsisting  at  the  commencement  of  the  Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, sec.   7-A provides  for  two  grounds  for  termination  of tenancy in addition 641 to the  grounds specified  in sec.  7, namely,  (i) that the land  comprising  the  tenancy  has  been  reserved  by  the landowner for  his personal  cultivation in  accordance with the provisions  of Chapter-II  and (ii)  that the  landowner owns 30  standard acres  of less  land and  the  land  falls within his  permissible limit.  In  the  case  of  tenancies commencing after  the commencement  of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands  (Second Amendment)  Act,  1956,  sec.  8 provides that the minimum term of the tenancy shall be three years, subject  to the  provisions of  sec. 7.  The question raised for  consideration in  the present case is whether in the case  of tenancies  commencing after the commencement of the Pepsu  Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956,  sec. 8  provides for  an additional  ground  for terminating a  tenancy, namely,  the expiry of the period of tenancy provided  it is  not  less  than  three  years.  The learned counsel for the appellant argued that sec. 8 is made expressly subject  to the  provisions of  sec 7  and when it prescribes that the minimum period of tenancy shall be three years, it  cannot possibly  mean that  the  tenancy  may  be terminated before  the expiry  of the  term of  three  years According to  the learned  counsel,  sec.  8  means  that  a tenancy may  not be  terminated on any ground whatsoever for three years  but may  be terminated  after the term of three years but  may be terminated on any of the grounds mentioned in sec.  7. Such a construction in our opinion would lead to some absurd  and anomalous  results. For example, one of the grounds mentioned in sec. 7 which enables the termination of the tenancy  is the  user by  the tenant  of the  land in  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

manner which is likely render the land unfit for the purpose for-which it was leased him. If the construction placed upon sec. 8  by the  appellant is  to be  accepted, a tenant may, with impunity  as soon as the land is leased to him, use the land in  a manner  to render  the land unfit for the purpose for which  it was  leased to  him, yet  the land-owner would have to  wait for  a term  of three years before terminating the tenancy.  This appears to us to be an absurd consequence and it is not possible for us to accept a construction which will lead  to such  disastrous results.  The only  alternate construction of sec. 8 is to hold that quite distinctly from the provisions  of sec.  7. a  tenancy may not be terminated within a period of three years after its commencement if the tenancy  commenced  after  the  commencement  of  the  Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, that is  to say, while the provisions of sec. 7 would always be available  in the  case of tenancies commencing after the Second Amendment  Act, a  tenant may  also be evicted on the termination of the period of tenancy which shall not be less than three years. So construed it may appear as if the words ’subject to the pro- 642 visions of  sec. 7’ are being read by us as ’notwithstanding the provisions  of sec. 7; but that may not be a correct way of looking  at what  we have said. The proper way of looking at the  scheme of  secs. 7,  7-A and 8 is to hold that while sec. 7  enumerates the  grounds on  which any tenancy may be terminated, sec.  7-A provides  for  additional  grounds  on which tenancies  subsiting at the commencement of  the Pepsu Tenancy and  Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956 may be terminated and sec. 8 provides for the termination of a tenancy  commencing after  the commencement  of the  Pepsu Tenancy and  Agricultural Lands  (Second  Amendment),  1956, apart from  the grounds mentioned in sec 7. That is why sec. 7 itself  uses the  word ’no  tenancy  shall  be  terminated except in  accordance with  the provisions  of  the  Act  or except of  any of  the following grounds,’ that is to say, a tenancy may be terminated either on the grounds mentioned in sec. 7  or in  accordance with the provisions of the Act. We think that  this is  the only reasonable and permissible way of construing  sec. 8  in the  setting of secs 7, 7-A and 8. The view taken by us appears to have been taken consistently by the Punjab High Court in the last 15 years and construing as we are doing a State Act, we do not think that  there  are any  compelling reasons justifying any departure from the  view taken  by the  Punjab High Court for so long. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No Costs. N. V. K.                                   Appeal dismissed. 643