RAM PARSHAD Vs. GOBINDA ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in this Letters Patent appeal concerns itself with the proposition that a 'sub -tenant' is included in the word 'tenant' in Section 17 -A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) THERE is no dispute on facts. The land in question is under the tenancy of Ram Parshad. Ram Parshad had inducted a tenant under him, namely, Gobinda. Lok Nath, the landowner, sold the land in dispute to Gobinda for a sum of Rs. 4,000. This sale was preempted by one Parma Nand, who is the son of the vendor and by Ram Parshad, the tenant. Both suits were consolidated. The vendee claimed that the sale being to a tenant was not pre -emptible. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that - 'sub -tenant' is a 'tenant' within the meaning of the expression in Section 17 -A of the Act. On appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the decision of the trial Court on the basis of a decision of this Court in Jaimal v. The Financial Commissioner Punjab, 1963 P.L.R. 1072, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in Jaimal v. Financial Commissioner Punjab : A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 392, holding that a sub -tenant is not included in the word 'tenant' in Section 18 of the Act. Against the decision of the learned District Judge, Gobinda preferred an appeal to this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court has taken the view that a 'sub -tenant' is included in the word 'tenant' in Section 17 -A. The learned Judge has been mainly influenced by the definition of 'tenant' in Section 2(6) which is in the following terms:

(3.) WITH utmost respect to the learned Single Judge, it appears to us, that, he overlooked the fact that under Section 17 -A(1), the sale of land comprising the tenancy of a tenant made to him by the landowner is not pre -emptible. Therefore, the parties to the sale which cannot be pre -empted are necessarily the landowner and the tenant. In this context, the sub -tenant does not come in. It is only the sale by the landowner to the tenant which is not pre -emptible, the implication being that there has to be a jural relationship of landowner and tenant. The vendee has to be a tenant of the vendor. There is no such relationship between the sub -tenant and the landowner. M the intention of the Legislature was to bring in the subtenant, they would have omitted the words "by the landowners" and "made to him". In that eventuality the section would have read:"' a sale of land comprising the tenancy of a tenant made to him shall not be pre -emptible." But by bringing in the words "made to him by the landowner", the matter is taken beyond the pale of speculation. As between the vendor and the vendee, there has to be a relationship of landowner and tenant. It is only such a sale which is immune from pre -emption. The sale to a sub -tenant does not make Section 17 -A applicable. Such a sale is not immune from pre -emption. If reference is made to Section 17 -B(1), this matter is further clarified. The contention of Mr. Sarin, learned Counsel for the Respondents, that a sub -tenant is covered by the expression "tenant", wherever this expression occurs in the Act, is wholly untenable. The context in which this expression is used will have to be seen before it can be held that the expression "tenant" includes a sub -tenant or not.