LAWS(P&H)-1970-4-26

GURBACHAN SINGH, ETC. Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, ETC.

Decided On April 28, 1970
Gurbachan Singh, Etc. Appellant
V/S
Financial Commissioner, Etc. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants, Gurbachan Singh and Karam Singh, have been tenants of the land, subject of controversy in this litigation, under the landlords, Pritam Singh, Harbans Singh and Tejinder Singh, Respondents 2 to 4, the first Respondent in this appeal being the financial Commissioner of Punjab.

(2.) THE parties belong to village Naiwala in Tehsil Barnala of Sangrur District, within the revenue estate of which the land in the tenancy of the Appellants is situate. The area was part of the former Pepsu State. On November 18, 1953, the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953 (Pepsu Act 8 of 1953), came into force. In this Act, Section 2(f) defines the expression 'landowner' to have "the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab Act 17 of 1887), and includes an allottee", and 'permissible limit', according to Section 3, is "thirty standard acres of land and where such thirty standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed sixty acres, such sixty acres", while Sections 5 and 6 deal with reservation of land by a landowner for personal cultivation, and starting from Section 7 there are provisions in Chapter III of this Act for protection of tenants stating clearly the grounds upon which alone eviction can be obtained. Respondents 2 to 4 never made any reservation according to Sections 5 and 6 of this Act. They have not made any such claim at any stage. Section 7 of this Act gives the grounds for termination of a tenancy, and it is not denied on either side that Respondents 2 to 4 could not have terminated the tenancy of the Appellants according to that provision.

(3.) IT has been the common case of the parties that on October 30, 1956, Respondents 2 to 4 held more than thirty standard acres of land consisting of ownership land and land under mortgage with them as mortgagees. It is also accepted on both sides that on that date the Appellants were tenants under Respondents 2 to 4 or their predecessor on that date and even earlier to that. In their petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, filed by the Appellants on August 6, 1964, they said that they had been tenants of the land under Respondents 2 to 4 for more than twenty years. Reckoning twenty years backwards from 1964, they were tenants under those Respondents from about the year 1944, and Pepsu Act 8 of 1953 came into force on November 18, 1953. So by that date they had been tenants under those Respondents for about nine years. There is No. finding by any of the revenue authorities in this case that their tenancy was for a period longer than that prior to the date of the coming into force of Pepsu Act 8 of 1953.