FAQIR CHAND (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. AND ANOTHER Vs. RAM JEEVAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I find that no substantial question of law has been framed by this Court on 11.12.1985 when the case was admitted. I, therefore, sought the assistance of the counsel to formulate the proposition which he wants to rely on and from arguments raised, I would frame the following substantial questions of law as arising in the appeal:-

(2.) As regards the character of lease as whether it appertains to an agricultural purpose or a non-agricultural purpose could be seen from the admitted fact that the defendant had admittedly established a saw mill and he was using the property for a period of 10 years. A saw mill is not an agricultural purpose. The examination of the meaning of agricultural purpose becomes relevant only because the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 itself constitutes Revenue Courts as the exclusive forum for adjudication of rights of leases for agricultural purposes. The provision for ejectment of a tenant from land, in the context of the definition of land as contained under Section 4(1) of the Act, is reproduced as under:-

(3.) The land defined also refers only to a lease let out for agricultural purpose. The lease on the property for establishing a saw mill is not an agricultural purpose. The issue of whether establishing a lease for a saw mill is an agricultural purpose has also been considered by the Supreme Court in K. Kunhambu v. Chandramma, 2004 9 SCC 174, while considering whether a lease providing for running a saw mill and tending care of coconut trees amounted to agricultural purpose to find the eligibility of tenant for occupancy rights under local law. The Supreme Court held that it was an industrial purpose and the benefit of agricultural tenancy did not apply. In Bhawanji Lakhamshi v. Himatlal Jamnadas Deni, 1972 1 SCC 388, the Supreme Court held that a tenant for running a saw mill and continuing in possession beyond the period of lease was a tenant at sufferance liable for eviction even without notice. The court was rejecting consideration of the lease either as an agricultural lease or meant for manufacturing purpose to require 6 months notice as contended by the tenant. The judgments squarely apply to the issue dealt with in this case. The Madras High Court, in P.P. Subba Raja v. E.S. Guruswamy, 1989 AIR(Mad) 321 while considering the adequacy of notice to a tenant who had been inducted for running a saw mill in the demised premises held it was neither an agricultural purpose nor a manufacturing purpose and hence a notice to quit 15 days next before termination of tenancy was valid. The lower Court was, therefore, justified in finding that lease was not for agricultural purpose and therefore, the bar of institution of suit before a Civil Court without resort to revenue court constituted under the Punjab Tenancy Act did not apply. The findings on the propositions have been properly answered by the Court below and I find no reason for interfering with the same. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed and points of law raised are taken as having been properly considered and affirmed by this Court.