KALIA Vs. CHANDU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal whose suit for declaration and injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Plaintiff-appellants filed a suit to the effect that they were old tenants on the suit land and had acquired proprietary rights and were neither evicted nor were liable to be evicted in pursuance of the order dated 13th June, 1969, Exhibit P. 11, of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul. By way of consequential relief, the plaintiffs claimed perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing them except in due course of law. Admittedly, defendant Chandu Lal was the landlord and the plaintiffs were the tenants on the land in dispute. The landlord made an application under Section 43 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, for the issuance of notice of ejectment to the plaintiffs-tenants. Thereupon, notice Exhibit P. 10 was issued in terms of Section 45 of the Tenancy Act calling upon the tenants to vacate the land under their tenancy before the 1st day of May next following. This notice was served upon them and they appeared with their counsel and wanted to contest the notice but since no further proceedings were to be conducted on this application, the Revenue Officer i.e. Assistant Collector IInd Grade by his order dated 21st November, 1968, Exhibit P. 9 ordered the papers to be consigned to record room. The tenants did not institute any suit which they were required to do by virtue of Section 45 of the Tenancy Act, if they contested their liability to be ejected or claimed compensation. On 20.3.1969, the landlord-defendant-respondent made an application Exhibit P. 15 under Section 45(5) of the Tenancy Act to the Assistant Collector Narnaul praying for ejectment of the tenants and stating inter alia that notice under Sections 43 and 45 of the Tenancy Act had been served upon the tenants on 15th November, 1968 and that the tenants had not instituted any suit to contest their liability to ejectment or to claim compensation. It was further stated therein that the plaintiffs were liable to be ejected under Section 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1953 and a notice of this application was given to the tenants under section 45(5) of the Tenancy Act. They refused to accept service as reported by process server vide his report Exhibits P. 12 and P. 17 dated 28th March, 1969. Thereupon, the Assistant Collector vide his order dated Ist April, 1969, Exhibit P. 13 directed ex- parte proceedings against the tenants. Subsequently, on 13th June, 1969, he passed the final order Exhibit P. 11 directing the ejectment of the tenants from the land in question. Warrant for the delivery of possession was issued and according to the report Exhibit P. 10, dated 15th June, 1969 the possession of a part of land was delivered physically and of the other part symbolically. The tenants, i.e. the plaintiffs filed a revision petition against the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul, before the Collector, Mohindergarh, but the same was dismissed on 29th March, 1972 vide order Exhibit P. 16. Thereafter, they filed the present civil suit on 18th April, 1972 from which the present appeal has arisen. According to the plaintiffs, they being tenants on the suit land for more than 15 years, had become entitled to acquire proprietary rights and could not be ejected except for grounds mentioned in Sections 7 and 7-A of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It was further alleged that the notice issued to them by the Assistant Collector was illegal and there was no valid service upon them. As regards the subsequent application under Sections 43 and 45 of the Tenancy Act, the same was alleged to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Thus they claimed that the whole proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction, and they were still in possession of the suit land as tenants. The suit was contested on the ground that all the proceedings before the Revenue Officer were valid and legal and in execution of the order of ejectment passed against the plaintiffs, the defendant had taken the possession. All other allegations were denied. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land as tenants and therefore, they had not acquired ownership rights in the suit property and further found that the order dated 13th June, 1969 Exhibit P. 11 and that of the Collector dated 29th March, 1972, are legal, valid and were passed with jurisdiction and as such binding on the plaintiffs. The suit was held to be barred by time in view of the provisions of Article 100 of the Limitation Act which provided a period of one year from the date of the order of the Assistant Collector dated 13th June, 1969. As a result of this finding, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers affirmed the findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. Dissatisfied with the same the plaintiffs have come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the order of ejectment passed against the plaintiffs, Exhibit P. 11 is void ab initio, being without jurisdiction and, according to the learned counsel, in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, as amended, the plaintiffs could not be ejected in a summary manner and, therefore, all those proceedings being null and void and without jurisdiction are not binding on them. It was also contended that the suit was within time as it was Article 101 of the Limitation Act which provided period of three years and the suit having been filed on 18th April, 1972, was within three years from the date of the order dated 13th June, 1969. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the only remedy with the plaintiffs was to file an appeal and revision under the Punjab Tenancy Act and the civil suit as such was not maintainable. In support of this contention he referred to Chiranji Lal v. Ram Dutt and others,1982 PunLJ 80, Nagina Singh v. Jangir Singh, 1975 PunLJ 254, and Firm Seth Radha Kishan (deceased represented by Hari Kishan and others v. Administrator Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, 1963 AIR(SC) 1547. It was next contended that suit has also been held to be barred by time rightly in view of the provisions of Article 100 of the Limitation Act. In support of this contention reference was made to Prabhu Mal v. Chandan, Plaintiff and another, 1938 AIR(Lah) 638, and Bruusqaard Kiosteruds Damoskibs Aktieselskab v. Secretary of State, 1940 AIR(Bom) 294. Lastly it was contended that the matter stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Shri Lakhbir v. Shri Anant Ram and others, 1969 PunLJ 176, wherein it has been held that the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act does not deal with the manner and method or procedure of ejectment but only deals with the grounds of ejectment and, therefore, the procedure of ejectment continued to be the same as provided in the Punjab Tenancy Act.