http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SANWAT SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ZAIL SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Punjab &  Haryana High  Court, made on 16.11.1986 in RSA No.848/77.      The admitted  and proved  facts are that one Dalip Kaur daughter of  Inder Singh  was the  owner of  the property in question. She  sold the  property on  April 14, 1967 to Smt. Jeth Kanwar.  Zail Singh had filed a suit for pre-emption of the sale  and obtained a decree of pre-emption on October 9, 1969. Thereafter, he sought to interfere with the possession of the  appellant who  was admittedly  in possession  of the said property.  Therefore, the  appellant filed  the suit in question for perpetual injunction restraining Zail singh and any other  person from  interfering with  his possession. He claimed to  be a  tenant prior  to 1957  from Dalip Kaur and was,   therefore,   entitled   to   remain   in   possession uninterruptedly as  such. The  trial Court found that he was in possession  as a  tenant prior  to 1957  and  accordingly granted the  decree  of  perpetual  injunction  against  the respondents. On  appeal, the  appellate Court  reversed  the decree holding  that the  appellant had come into possession of the  suit property  some time  in 1968 after the sale was made in  favour of  Jeet Kanwar.  Since Dalip  Kaur had pre- empted the  property sold  by her  mother, the tenancy right created by  Jeet Singh  in favour  of the  appellant did not bind Jeet  Singh-defendant. Having obtained the pre-emption, he had  right to  take physical  possession of  the property dispossessing  the   appellant.  As   a   consequence,   the injunction was not correct in law. That  was affirmed by the High Court  in the  second appeal following the ratio of the judgment of  the Full Bench of the High Court in Hukam Singh v. Hakumat Rai [(1967) PLR 743].      Mr Prem  Malhotra, learned  counsel appearing  for  the appellant, contends  that even  accepting the finding of the appellate Court,  without conceding that he was not a tenant prior to  1957, the findings recorded by the appellate Court are unsustainable in law and the application of the judgment of the  Full  Bench  to  the  facts  in  this  case  is  not warranted. Therefore,  the decree  of  the  trial  Court  is correct  in   law.  In   support  thereof,  he  relied  upon

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

proposition Nos.(i),  (ii) and  (iv) laid in the judgment of the Full Bench which read as under:      (i) The  title of  a pre-emptor  in      respect of  the pre-empted property      accrues  from  the  date  on  which      payment of  the purchase  money and      costs (if  any) is  made by  him in      accordance with  the provisions  of      Order XX,  rule 12  of the  code of      Civil Procedure;      (ii) On  such title accruing to him      the  pre-emptor   is  entitled   to      delivery  of   possession  of   the      property  in   question  from   the      vendee including any person who has      happened to  possess  the  property      through  the   vendee   after   the      original sale;      (iv) a  tenant inducted  into  pre-      emptible property by a vendee after      its sale  in his  favour  does  not      become the tenant of the pre-emptor      after title  to the property passes      to  the  latter  by  devolution  of      interest; as  the vendee is not the      predecessor-in-interest of the pre-      emptor;"      Though notice  has been served on the respondents, they are not  appearing either  in  person  or  through  counsel. Having considered  the  contention  raised  by  the  learned counsel for  the appellant,  we find  that there is force in the same.  It is seen that Proposition No. (i) lays that the title  of  the  pre-emptor  in  respect  of  the  pre-empted property accrues  from the  date on  which  payment  of  the purchase money  and the  costs,  if  any,  is  made  by  him accordance with  the provisions of Order XX Rule 14, CPC. In other   words, he  acquires the  title only from the date of the deposit  of the pre-emption money and the costs, if any, into the Court. Proposition No. (ii) envisages that the pre- emptor is entitled to delivery of possession of the property in  question  from  the  vendee  including  any  person  who happened to  possess the  property through  the vendee after the original  sale. Proposition  No. (iv)  provides  that  a tenant inducted  into pre-empted  property by a vendee after its in  his favour  does not  become the  tenant of the pre- emptor, after the title to the property passes to the latter by  devolution  of  interest,  as  the  vendee  is  not  the predecessor-in-interest, of  the pre-emptor. It is seen that since he  acquired the  title to the property only after the purchase money  was deposited  into the  Court, the  natural consequence would  be that  any tenancy rights of any person created by  the predecessor vendee or possessory right given by the  vendor binds  the vendee and to the ... or person in lawful possession.  It is  seen that the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 defines  a tenant  to mean  a person who holds the 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. In other words, a tenant who is holding a land under the vendor  is a tenant within the meaning of Punjab Tenancy Act. Section  9 of  the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 specifically  bars ejectment  of a  tenant except under certain conditions. Conditions enumerated are as under:      "Notwithstanding anything contained      in any other law for the time being      in force,  no land  owner shall  be

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

    competent to  eject a tenant except      when such tenant -      (i)  is   a  tenant   on  the  area      reserved under  this Act  or  is  a      tenant of a small landlord; or      (ii) fails  to pay  rent  regularly      without sufficient cause; or      (iii) is  in arrears of rent at the      commencement of this Act; or      (iv) has  failed, or  rails without      sufficient cause,  to cultivate the      land comprised  in his  tenancy  in      the  manner   or  to   the   extent      customary in  the locality in which      the land is situated; or      (v)  has  used  or  uses  the  land      comprised  in   his  tenancy  in  a      manner  which   has  rendered,   or      renders it unfit for the purpose of      which he holds it; or      (vi) has  sublet the  tenancy or  a      part thereof  provided  that  where      only a part of the tenancy has been      sublet;      the tenant  shall be  liable to  be      ejected only from such part".      In other  words, notwithstanding  anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, including the law relating to  prescription, a  tenant in  possession  of  the demised property  by the  vendor is  not liable to ejectment except  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  contained  in Section 9  of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. It is  not his  case that  he has  contravened  any  of  the provisions and  is liable  to be ejected. Even otherwise, if his case  is that  he has contravened any of the provisions, unless appropriate  action in  accordance with  law is taken and  order   passed,  he  is  entitled  to  resist  unlawful interference  with   the  possession.  Thereby,  the  decree granted by  the appellate  Court and  confirmed by  the high Court is not correct in law.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  judgment  and decree of  the High  Court and  of the appellate Court stand set aside  and that  of the  trial Court stands restored. No costs.