SUMER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONERREVENUEHARYANACHANDIGRAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following undisputed facts unravel the controversy raised in this petition.

(2.) On Oct. 31, 1966, respondents Nos. 4 to 11 filed a suit under S. 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, to establish their claim as occupancy tenants on petitioner's land in their occupation. But for the Collector this suit of theirs has consistently been decreed by the other revenue Courts namely. Assistant Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. This decree is now impugned by the petitioner-landlord primarily on the ground that the day (Oct. 31. 1966) the above noted respondents filed the present suit, they were not the tenants under the petitioner and had in fact ceased to be so with effect from Oct. 27, 1966, when an order of eviction was passed against them under S. 14A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953(for short, the Act) at the instance of the petitioner. The plea raised on behalf of these respondents which, as already indicated, has been consistently accepted by the revenue Courts, is that the proviso contained in the latter part of clause (i) of S. 14-A of the Act protects the rights of these tenants notwithstanding the order of eviction passed against them on Oct. 27, 1966. The Financial Commissioner has rather dealt with the whole matter cursorily. This is all what he says after noticing the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. :--

(3.) It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents nor can it possibly be that relationship of landlord and tenant ceases to exist between the parties the moment an order of ejectment is passed against the tenant and his actual dispossession from the land in execution of the order of ejectment is not necessary for the determination of the tenancy. This has already been so settled by this Court in Hans Raj v. Rai Sahib Pt, Bhagat Ram, 1960 Pun LJ 78, Pishori Lal v. Hukama, 1972 Pun LJ 4 and by the final Court in Rikhi Ram v. Ram Kumar, 1975 Pun LJ 331 : (AIR 1975 SC 1869). So the short point which needs determination by this Court is as to whether the proviso as contained in the latter part of clause (i) of S. 14-A saves the rights of the respondent- tenants in spite of the order of eviction passed against them prior to the institution of the present suit.