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

PETITIONER: TEKAN AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GANESHI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/1962

BENCH:

ACT: Landlord  and  Tenant Security  of  land  Tenures-Landowner- Lessee-Mortgage-Tenant  Lessee  not  landowner-No  right  to eject-Punjab  Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab  10 of  1953), ss. 2 (1), 9 (1), 14A (1) -East Punjab  Displaced Persons  Land  Resettlement  Act, 1949 (East  Punjab  36  of 1949).  s.  2-Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, (Punjab  17  of 1887), ss. 3 (2) 4 (5) - Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Punjab 16 of 1887).

HEADNOTE: The appellant is a lessee from the owner of the land and his lease  comprises a large area of land including the land  of which  the respondent is the tenant.  The appellant  applied to the Assistant Collector under s. 14A (1) read with s.9  ( 1)  of  the  Punjab Security of Land  Tenures  Act  for  the ejectment of the respondent on the ground that the appellant was  a  land  owner and he required the  land  for  his  own cultivation.   The application was allowed.  The  respondent thereupon  appealed  to the Colletor alleging  as  the  main ground  that only a landowner could dispossess a  tenant-at- will and that since the appellant was not a landowner within the  meaning of s. 2 (1) of the Act was not entitled to  ask for ejectment under s. 14A (1). the Collector accepted  this contention and allowed the appeal.  Thereafter the appellant appealed  to the Commissioner who allowed the appeal on  the ground that a lessee being like a mortgagee with  possession was a landowner for all purposes.  On revision the Financial Commissioner held that the appellant was not a landowner and therefore not entitled to ejectment.  The appellant appealed to  this Court by special leave.  The only  contention  that was  urged in the appeal was that appellant was a  landowner within the meaning of s. 2(1). Held,  as  a lessee the appellant holds land  under  another person  namely the owner of the land from whom he has  taken the  lease  and  is  liable  to  pay  rent.   The  appellant therefore  being  a  tenant within s.4  (5)  of  the  Punjab Tenancy Act cannot be a landowner under s.312) of the Punjab Land  Revenue Act or a landowner within the meaning of s.  2 (1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.  Hence he is not entitled to eject the respondent.  387

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No 367 of 1959. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated November 23, 1957. of the Additional Commissioner Punjab, in

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

Revision No. 143 of 1956-57. I.M. Lal and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants. Achhru Ram and K. L. Mehta, for the respondent. 1962.  February 22.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO,  J.-This  is an appeal by special  leave  from  the order of the Financial Commissioner Punjab in respect of the application  made by the appellant under s. 14-A(i)  of  the Punjab  Security  of  Land  Tenures  Act,  No,  X  of  1953, (hereinafter  referred to as the Act), read with is.  9  (1) thereof, for ejectment of the respondent, on the ground that he was a small landowner.  The appellant claimed that he was the landowner and the respondent was a tenant-at-will  under him.   He therefore claimed ejectment of the  respondent  on the  ground that he had less than thirty standard acres  and required the land for his own cultivation.  The  application was  filed before the Assistant Collector who held that  the respondent   was  liable  to  ejectment  and   allowed   the application.    Thereupon  there  was  an  appeal   by   the respondent to the Collector and it was urged there that only a landowner could dispossess a tenant-at-will under s. 14-A. (i)  and as the appellant was not a landowner bat  merely  a landlord  of  the  respondent he was  not  entitled  to  the benefit   of  s.  14-A(i).   The  Collector  accepted   this contention and held that the appellant was not a  land-owner and   therefore  allowed  the  appeal  and   dismissed   the application for ejectment.  The appellant then went 388 in appeal to the Commissioner.  It may be mentioned that the appellant  is  a lessee from the owner of the land  and  his lease comprises, a larger area of land including the land of which  the  ’respondent is the tenant.   The  contention  on behalf of the appellant before the Commissioner was that  he was a landowner within the meaning of that word in s. 2  (1) of  the  Act  and  was’  therefore  entitled  to  eject  the respondent.   The Commissioner held that the position  of  a lessee was just like a mortgagee with possession and that  a lessee  was  s. landowner for all  purposes.   He  therefore allowed  the  appeal  and restored the  order  of  ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector. Thereupon the  respondent went  in  revision to the Financial Commissioner,  who  held that  a mere lessee with only constructive possession as  in this  case could not be included in the term ,landowner"  as used  in  the Act, and that. even if the appellant  was  the landlord  of  the respondent he could not be held  to  be  a landowner  within  the  meaning of the  Act.   He  therefore allowed   the   revision,  set  aside  the  order   of   the Commissioner  and restored that of the Collector  dismissing the   appellant’s  application  for  ejectment.   This   was followed  by an application by the appellant to  this  Court for  special leave, which was granted; and that is  how  the matter has come up before us. The  only  question  that has been urged on  behalf  of  the appellant before us is that the Financial Commissioner  went wrong in holding that he was not a landowner.  The  question whether the appellant is a landowner or not depends upon the definition  of  that  term in the Act,  which  is  in  these terms:-               "(1)  ’Landowner’  means a person  defined  as               such  in  the Punjab land Revenue  Act,  1887,               (Act  XVII  of  1887), and  shall  include  an               ’allottee’ and ’lessee’ as defined in  clauses               (b) and (c). respectively of section 2 of  the               East                                    389

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

             Punjab  Displaced Persons (Land  Resettlement)               Act,  1949,  (Act XXXVI of  1949)  hereinafter               referred to as the ’Resettlement Act’.               Explanation-In respect of land mortgaged  with               possession,  the mortgagee shall be deemed  to               be the landowner." It  is not in dispute that the appellant is not an  allottee or  a lessee as defined in cls. (b) and (c) of s. 2  of  the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act,  (No. XXXVI  of  1949).   It  is also  not  in  dispute  that  the appellant is not a mortgagee with possession.  Therefore  he can  only claim to be a landowner within this definition  if he is a landowner as defined in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, (No’.   XVII  of 1887).  In that Act the definition  of  the word ’,’landowner" as given in s. 3 (2) is in these terms :-               "  landowner’ does not include a tenant or  an               assignee  of land revenue, but does include  a               person to whom a holding has been transferred,               or  an estate or holding has been let in  farm               under  this Act for the recovery of an  arrear               of  land-revenue  or of a sum  recoverable  as               such  as  arrear and every  other  person  not               hereinbefore  in this clause mentioned who  is               in  possession  of an estate or any  share  or               portion  thereof  or in the enjoyment  of  any               part of the profits of an estate." The  contention on behalf of the -appellant is that he  must be  held to be a landowner within the meaning of  this  sub- section as he is in the enjoyment of the part of the profits of  the  estate.  It is obvious that the last  part  of  the definition  on  which  this argument  is  based  applies  to persons  who  are other than tenants and assignees  of  land revenue, and so we will have to determine whether the  appe- llant is a tenant; if he is, he is not a landowner.  We have therefore  to  go to the Punjab Tenancy Act,  (No.   XVI  of 1887), to find out who is a tenant, and 390 whether  the  appellant  is  a  tenant,  within  that   Act. Definition of "tenant" in s. 4 (5) of that Act is as follows : - 11(5)  ,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 but it does not include- (a)  an inferior landowner, or (b)  a mortgagee of the rights of a land- owner, or (c)a person to whom a holding has been transferred, or  an estate or holding has been let in farm under the Punjab Land Revenue  Act.  1887 for the recovery of an  arrear  of  land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear, or (d)a  person  who  takes  from the  Government  a  lease  of unoccupied land for the purpose of subletting it;". It is not in dispute that the appellant does not come within the  four exceptions mentioned in this subsection.   It  has therefore  to be seen whether the appellant is 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.   We  are  of  opinion  that  the   appellant satisfies this definition of the term "tenant" in s. 4  (5). As a lessee he holds land under another person, namely,  the owner  of the land from whom he has taken the lease  and  is liable  to  pay rent equal to the lease money for  the  land which  he  has  taken on lease to that  other  person.   The appellant  is therefore clearly a tenant within s. 4 (5)  of

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

the Punjab Tenancy Act.  He cannot therefore be a  landowner under s. 3 (2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.  Incidentally we  may  add that this conclusion is borne out by  the  fact that in the copy of the Girdawari entries, the appellant  in shown as a  391 tenant,  the  entry being "Tekan and  others,  Gairmaurasian first   through  Ganeshi  Gair  Maurasi   secondhalf.    The appellant is thus a tenant of the land of which he has taken lease  and  cannot  be  a  landowner  keeping  in  view  the definition  of that term in the Act and in the  Punjab  Land Revenue  Act.   The  appeal therefore fails  and  is  hereby dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.