http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DINA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 531        JT 1995 (9)   244  1995 SCALE  (7)330

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      By order  dated July  28, 1992,  a Bench  of two Judges referred the  matter to a Bench of three Judges doubting the correctness of  the decision  in Bhartu  v. Randhir  Singh & Ors. [(1985)  2 SCR  638]. The  admitted facts  are that the appellant-tenant was  sought to be ejected by petition dated January, 29,  1996 from  47 Bighas  13  Biswas  situated  in village Burj  Baghelsinghwala, Distt.  Sangrur on the ground that the  period of  three years of the lease had expired by that dated and that, therefore, he was liable to be ejected. The Assistant Collector Grade I by order dated July 30, 1996 ordered ejectment  of the  appellant under  S.8 of the Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act as amended by Act No.15/56, (for short "the Amendment Act"). It was confirmed on appeal. When it  was questioned in writ petition, the learned single Judge following the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Piara Singh  v. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh &  Ors. [AIR  1978 Punjab  76]  held  that  after expiry of  three years,  under Section  8 the  appellant  is liable to ejectment. Thus this appeal by special leave.      The only question is whether the landlord, after expiry of three  years’ lease  gets right of ejectment of a tenant, under Section  8  without  recourse  to  the  provisions  of Sections 7  and 7A  of the  Act. Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Act read as under:      "7.  Termination  of  tenancy.  -  (1)No      tenancy shall  be terminated  except  in      accordance with  the provisions  of this      Act or  except on  any of  the following      grounds, namely:-      (a)   (Omitted  by Pepsu  Act  No.15  of      1956).      (b)   that  the tenant has failed to pay      rent within a period of six months after

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    it falls due:      Provided that no tenant shall be ejected      under this  clause unless  he  has  been      afforded  an   opportunity  to  pay  the      arrears of  rent within a further period      of six  months  from  the  date  of  the      decree or  order directing his ejectment      and he  has failed  to pay  such arrears      during that period;      (c)    that  the  tenant,  not  being  a      widow, a  minor, an  unmarried woman,  a      member of  the Armed Forces of the Union      or a  person  incapable  of  cultivating      land by  reason of  physical  or  mental      infirmity, has after commencement of the      President’s  Act,   sublet  without  the      consent in writing of the landowner, the      land comprising  his tenancy or any part      thereof;      (d)    that   the  tenant  has,  without      sufficient cause,  failed  to  cultivate      opersonally such land, in the manner and      to the  extent customary in the locality      in which such land is situated;      (e)   that the tenant has used such land      or any part thereof in a manner which is      likely to  render the land unfit for the      purpose for which it was leased to him;      (f)   that  the  tenant,  on  demand  in      writing by  the landowner has refused to      execute a Kabuliyat agreeing to pay rent      in respect  of his tenancy in accordance      with the provisions of ss.9 and 10.      7(2) (Omitted  by  Pepsu  Act  No.15  of      1956.      70A Additional ground for termination of      tenancy in certain cases: (1) Subject to      the provisions  of sub-ss.(2) and (3), a      tenancy subsisting  at the  commencement      of the  Pepsu Tenancy  and  Agricultural      Lands (Second  Amendment) Act, 1956, may      be terminated  on the  following grounds      in addition  to the grounds specified in      s.7, namely:-      (a)    that   the  land  comprising  the      tenancy  has   been  reserved   by   the      landowner for  his personal  cultivation      in accordance  with  the  provisions  of      Chapter II;      (b)   that  the  landowner  owns  thirty      standard acres  or less  of land and the      land fells within his permissible limit;           Provided that  no tenant other than      a tenant of a landowner who is member of      the Armed  Forces of  the Union shall be      ejected under this sub-section -      (i)   from  any area of land if the area      under the  personal cultivation  of  the      tenant does  not  exceed  five  standard      acres, or      (ii)  from  an  area  of  five  standard      acres, if  the area  under the  personal      cultivation of  the tenant  exceeds five      standard acres,  until he is allotted by      the State Government alternative land of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    equivalent value in standard acres.      (2)     No   tenant,   who   immediately      preceding  the   commencement   of   the      President’s  Act   has  held   any  land      continuously  for  a  period  of  twelve      years or  more under  the same landowner      or his  predecessor in  title, shall  be      ejected on the grounds specified in sub-      s.(1) -      (a)   from any area of land, if the area      under the  personal cultivation  of  the      tenant does  not exceed fifteen standard      acres, or      (b)   from  any area of fifteen standard      acres, if  the area  under the  personal      cultivation  of   the   tenant   exceeds      fifteen standard acres;           Provided that  nothing in this sub-      section shall  apply to  the tenant of a      landowner who,  both at the commencement      of the  tenancy and  the commencement of      the President’s  Act,  was  a  widow,  a      minor, an  unmarried woman,  a member of      the Armed  Forces  of  the  Union  or  a      person incapable  of cultivating land by      reason of physical or mental infirmity.      Explanation. -  In computing  the period      of twelve years, the period during which      any land  has been  held under  the same      landowner or his predecessor-in-title by      the father, brother or son of the tenant      shall be included.      (3)   For the purpose of computing under      sub-ss.(1) and (2) the area of lan under      the personal  cultivation of  a  tenant,      any area  of lan owned by the tenant and      under his  personal cultivation shall be      included.      x     x      x      x      x     x     x      8.     Security  of  tenure  to  certain      tenants. -  Subject to the provisions of      s.7, every  tenant  admitted  after  the      commencement of  the Pepsu  Tenancy  and      Agricultural  Lands  (Second  Amendment)      Act, 1956, shall hold land for a minimum      term of three years.      Provided that nothing herein shall apply      to the  tenant of  a  person  who  is  a      widow, a  minor, an  unmarried woman,  a      member of  the Armed Forces of the Union      or a  person  incapable  of  cultivating      land by  reason of  physical  or  mental      infirmity." The contention  of Mr.  H.K. Puri,  learned counsel  for the appellant is  that Section  8, in the light of the Statement of Objects  and Reasons  for introducing  the Amendment Act, gives protection  of minimum  tenure to  the tenant.  If the landlord seeks  ejectment of the tenant, necessarily, he has to  fall  back  upon  satisfying  conditions  enumerated  in Section 7  and 7-A.  On expiry of three years, the tenant is not automatically  liable to  be ejected,  unless he commits any one  of the contraventions mentioned in Section 7 or the landlord requires  the land  as enumerated in Section 7-A of the Act.  Shri Dua,  the learned  counsel appearing  for the landlord contended  that the  object of the Amendment Act is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

not only  to give  protection to  the tenant  and small land holders to  augment their  holding but also to give right to the  small   tenure  holders  to  have  the  tenant  ejected irrespective  of   applicability  of   all  or  any  of  the provisions enumerated  in Section  7 or  Section 7-A  of the Act. The  question, therefore, is whether the interpretation given to  Section 7,  7-A and  8 by this Court is correct in law.      The objects and reasons have been enumerated thus:      "The necessity  for introducing  certain      agrarian reforms,  particularly  with  a      view to  protecting the  tenants against      eviction  and   fixing  for  allotees  a      higher limit for reservation of land for      personal cultivation, was being felt for      sometime  past.   This  Bill   seeks  to      achieve the object by amending the Pepsu      Tenancy  and   Agricultural  Lands  Act,      1955." The object  and reasons enumerates twin purposes, namely, to give minimum  period of  tenancy and  to protect the tenants against unreasonable  eviction and fix for allotees a higher limit for  reservation of  land  for  personal  cultivation. These objects  were sought  to be  achieved by Section 8 and Section  7-A   respectively.  Section   8  accords  solitary protection to  the tenant  of minimum tenure of three years. It says  that subject  to the provisions of Section 7, every tenant admitted  after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural  Lands Act,  (Second Amendment) Bill, 1956, shall hold land for a minimum term of three years. The other part of  the provision  is not  necessary for the purpose of this case  and so  we need not again produce it. The object, thereby, clearly  indicates that  the tenant  shall hold the land for  a minimum  term of  three years  but such  holding should be subject to his abiding the provisions of Section 7 which enumerates diverse conditions subject to which tenancy may be  terminated by  the landlord.  As seen,  Section  7-A gives additional  grounds to  terminate the  tenancy in  the cases enumerated  thereunder. We  are not concerned with the effect of the provisions contained in Section 7-A.      It was  contended in  the High  Court that  despite the contravention of  any one  or all  the grounds  provided  in Section 7,  a tenant is entitled to remain in a fixed tenure for three  years which  was rightly  rejected. It   does not appear to  be a correct reading of Section 8. Though Section 8 gives  right to  the tenant  of the  fixity of  tenure  of minimum three  years, it  would be subject to the conditions enumerated in Section 7. If a tenant commits any one or some or all  the contraventions  enumerated in Section 7, despite the fact  that Section  8 guarantees  minimum term  of three years, he  is liable  to be  ejected. In other words, though minimum three  years’ tenancy  right is  protected, it casts corresponding duty  on the  tenant to abide by law mentioned in Section  7. Equally  landlord is entitled to avail of the benefit  under  Section  7A  to  have  the  tenant  ejected. Otherwise, as  stated by  this Court  in  Bhartu’s  case,  a tenant may  cause damage  to the demised land and yet remain in  occupation   of  the  land  for  three  years  which  is inconsistent with the object of Sections 7 and 8. This Court in Bhartuls  case (supra)  considered the  effect of  it and held that the tenant is liable to comply with the provisions of Section 7. To that extent, we are in respectful agreement with the  ratio in  Bhartu’s case.  But on  expiry of  three years’ tenure,  a tenant  is not  automatically liable to be ejected or  merely because  the  landlord  happens  to  hold

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

lesser holding  or on  any other ground, The tenant would be liable to  ejectment only on proof of one or some or all the conditions mentioned  in Section 7 or Section 7-A are proved by  the  landlord  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  competent authority/officer. If  the landlord  wants to  avail of  the right  under  Section  7-A,  he  necessarily  has  to  prove compliance of  the conditions  enumerated in  Section 7A and have the  tenant ejected  on proof of the grounds enumerated therein. Accordingly,  we are of the considered view that de hors Sections  7 and  7-A,  Section  8  does  not  give  any independent right to the landlord to have the tenant ejected on mere expiry of three years’ term mentioned in Section 8.      We  are  of  the  considered  view  that  law  was  not correctly laid  down in  Bhartu’s case  / by the majority in Piars Singh’s case.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  orders of the tribunals below  directing ejectment of the appellant is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and the rule nisi is made  absolute.  But,  in  the  circumstances,  parties  are directed to bear their own costs.