Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh vs Surinder Mohan on 18 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052992
RSA-278-1999 (O&M) 1 2024:PHHC:052992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-278-1999 (O&M)
Reserved on: 18.03.2024
Date of decision:18.04.2024
Gurnam Singh and others
....Appellants
Versus
Surinder Mohan (deceased) through LRs and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for the appellants
Mr.Anish Sethia, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr. Madhur Panwar, Advocate for
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for respondent no.2
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. In this Regular Second Appeal, the defendants (lessees)
challenged the correctness of the concurrent findings of the courts below
while decreeing the plaintiff's suit for possession by way of ejectment
with respect to 30 kanals 16 marlas of land. The entire case of the
plaintiffs is based upon the fact that the defendant, after having denied
the tenancy, can claim ouster of civil court's jurisdiction on the ground
that they are liable to be ejected only in accordance with the provisions
of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as '1887 Act')
read with the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act,
1953 (hereinafter referred to as '1953 Act').
2. While admitting the appeal, the court culled out the
following substantial questions of law:-
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052992
RSA-278-1999 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:052992
"1. Whether the jurisdiction of Civil
Courts is barred under Section 77 of Punjab Tenancy
Act?
2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the absence of
notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property
Act?"
3. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length
and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
4. On 05.02.2024, after hearing the learned counsel
representing the parties at some length, they were requested to assist the
Court on the following questions:-
"a) Whether tenancy of the agricultural land
stands forfeited on denial of relationship by the tenant?
b) Is it permissible for the owner/landlord to
file a suit for possession by way of ejectment without
making out a case for eviction of the tenant under the
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with the Punjab Security of
Land Tenures Act, 1953?"
5. On the one hand, the learned counsel representing the
appellants relies upon a larger Bench's judgment in Shyam Lal vs.
Deepa Dass Ram Chela Garib Dass 2016 AIR (SC) 3243 whereas the
learned counsel representing respondent no.1 relies upon Assa Singh
(dead) by LRs vs. Shanti Parshad (dead) by LRs and others (2021)
19 SCC 290.
6. In this case, Swaran Singh son of Mangal Singh, the son of
original defendant stopped paying the lease money to the landlords
forcing them to file petitions under the 1953 Act, which was decreed.
Thereafter, in continuation of the aforesaid series of litigation, the
plaintiffs filed recovery suit under the 1953 Act for recovery of rent from
the agricultural crop kharrif 1987 to Rabi 1990 in which on 18.01.1991
Swaran Singh filed the written statement, in which he denied the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052992
RSA-278-1999 (O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:052992
relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiffs. Thus,
the plaintiffs were forced to file the suit on 08.11.1991 for possession.
In this litigation, legal representatives of Swaran Singh claimed
themselves to be tenants.
7. On appreciation of evidence, both the courts below decreed
the plaintiff's suit for the grant of possession on the ground that the
tenancy has been repudiated by Swaran Singh tenant while relying upon
a Division Bench judgment in 1970 PLR 223.
8. On the one hand, as already noticed, the learned counsel
representing the appellants relies upon Shyam Lal's case (supra). This
Court has carefully read the aforesaid judgment. In this judgment, it has
been held that after expiry of fixed period of tenancy, the landlord has no
right to file a civil suit for possession as the lessee get protection under
the provisions of 1887 Act read with 1953 Act. In this case, the
Supreme Court was not dealing with a situation where lessee has denied
the relationship between him and the landlord. Hence, the aforesaid
judgment is not applicable. On the other hand, in Assa's Singh case
(supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with exactly the same situation.
It was held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted if a
landlord tenant relationship is disputed. By an elaborate judgment, the
Supreme Court discussed all aspects of the matter and answered the
following questions:-
"Whether despite exclusive jurisdiction conferred on
Revenue Court, to even order eviction of tenant, civil court
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052992
RSA-278-1999 (O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:052992
will not have jurisdiction in case where there is dispute
relating to landlord-tenant relationship?
The Supreme Court ultimately held that the jurisdiction of
the civil court is not barred.
9. Furthermore, the appellants have no equity in their favour
as their predecessor denied the landlord-tenant relationship. Now, they
are estopped from claiming that they are entitled to protection under the
1887 Act.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere
is made out.
11. Hence, dismissed.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
18 .04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
