TEKAN Vs. GANESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 s. 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 but 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 landowner and therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for ejectment. The appellant then went; 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 a 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.

(2.) 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:

(3.) It is not in dispute that the appellant is not an allottee or a lessee as defined in cla. (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 :