DINA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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, (1985) 2 SCR 638 . The admitted facts are that the appellant-tenant was sought to be ejected by petition dated January 29, 1966, 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 date 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 Section 8 of the Pepsu Tenancy and 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. Financial Commr. Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, 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.

(2.) The only question is whether the landlord, after expiry of three years' lease gets right of ejectment of 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:-

(3.) 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 Sections 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 7A of the Act. Shri Dua, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord contended that the object of the Amendment Act is 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 Sections 7,7A and 8 by this Court is correct in law.