TEJ KAUR Vs. DALIP SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed in appeal.

(2.) The Muslims, in the year 1941, leased out their agricultural lands vide lease deeds, Exhibits P.1 and P.2 to the predecessors-in-interest of plaintiff Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and plaintiff No. 5. According to the terms of the lease they were the tenants thereon from generation to generation and they were not to be ejected therefrom except on certain terms. One of the terms was that in case they failed to pay the annual rent for two consecutive years, they were liable to be ejected. At the time of the partition of the country, the Muslim owners left the country and thus, the land leased out by them became the evacuee property. Out of the same, the land measuring 15 Kanals 12 Marlas was allotted to Tej Kaur, defendant-appellant by the Rehabilitation authorities on July 13, 1949. Symbolical possession thereof was also given to her on May 10, 1950. Thus, in the revenue entries instead of the Custodian, she was shown to be the owner whereas the plaintiffs were shown to be the tenants under her. It is the common case of the parties that the plaintiffs have been paying the rent to her as per terms of the lease deeds, Exhibits P.1 and P.2, since the year 1966. The plaintiffs filed the present suit on February 18, 1977, for the grant of the declaration that they along with defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were the owners in possession of the suit land including the land allotted to Tej Kaur, defendant-appellant. It was alleged that in view of the terms of the lease deeds they were the occupancy tenants thereon and that after the coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Amendment Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act), the right, title and interest of the evacuee landlords in the land, in question, were extinguished and they being the occupancy tenants thereon became the owners thereof. Since defendants Nos. 1 to 4 wanted to forcibly eject them from the suit land; hence the present suit. The suit was contested by all the defendants including the Union of India and the State of Punjab inter alia on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the leases effected by Muslims vide Exhibits P.1 and P.2 stood terminated with effect from July 25, 1949 under the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949. The plaintiffs committed default in making the payment of the lease money and, thus, they had rendered themselves liable to be ejected. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were not the occupancy tenants on the disputed land and, therefore, the question of their becoming the owners thereof did not arise, as alleged. The plea of limitation was also raised. The learned trial Court found that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the plaintiffs were not the occupancy tenants at the time of the enforcement of the Act and as such there was no question of vesting of the land in them, the possession of the land with them was only on behalf of the Custodian, their possession thereof was only that of the tenants-at-will and that they were in default in making the payment of the lease money. The suit was also held to be barred by time. In view of these findings, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said findings of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that both the leases were from generation to generation and the plaintiffs were not to be ejected in case they went on paying the agreed rent. It was only in the event of their failure to pay the rent for two consecutive years that they rendered themselves liable to be ejected. Thus, the foremost question to be determined before the lower appellate Court was whether the lessees were the occupancy tenants on the suit land and their rights were converted into that of the owners under the Act. Ultimately, it was found by the lower appellate Court, -

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that from the terms of the lease deeds, it could not be held that the tenants had become the occupancy tenants on the suit land. According to the learned counsel, since they were liable to be ejected under the terms of the lease deeds, they could not be held to be occupancy tenants. It was further contended that since the plaintiffs had been paying rent to the defendant since the year 1966 and accepted her to be their landlady, the suit as such was not maintainable. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to declare that the plaintiffs were the occupancy tenants on the suit land and had become the owners thereof under the Act. According to the learned counsel, the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred under section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.