MANDIR JHOKE HARI HAR Vs. AJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1, 2 and 4 in Civil Suit No. 174 of 1972 are the appellants in this appeal. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 were in possession of the suit lands as tenants-at-will paying a yearly rent of Rs. 834/- and were entitled to remain in possession as such (as tenants-at-will) until ejected in the course of law in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. They also sought possession of the land as tenants-at-will. Their case as stated in the plaint was that defendant No. 1 leased out the suit land to Sital Parshad and Amar Chand as tenants-at-will for a period of 20 years and that Sital Parshad and Amar Chand transferred their rights to the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 my means of a registered deed dated 17th July, 1958. They were in possession as tenants-at-will and were regularly paying rent of defendant No. 1. While so, the defendant No. 1 sought to evict them up by filing an application under Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act in the Court of the Revenue Assistant, Ferozepore. There was an order of ejectment, but the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 preferred a successful appeal to the Collector, Ferozepore. Defendant No. 1 filed a further appeal to the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, during the pendency of which there was a compromise, by which the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 were allowed to remain in possession as tenants-at-will on paying rent at Rs. 834/- per year instead of Rs. 417/- which was the original rent. The plaintiff and defendant No. 6 also made some construction on the land in addition to the construction already made and machinery already installed by Sital Parshad and Amar Chand. Rent was also being paid regularly. The last payment for rent was made on May 26, 1972. The plaintiff and defendant No. 6 had gone to Ahmednagar for a few months and taking advantage of their absence, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 conspired together and took illegal possession of the land. The defendants 1 and 2 who contested the suit pleaded that on the expiry of the period of 20 years for which the land was leased, defendant No. 3 who had been cultivating the land on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 informed defendants 1 and 2 that he had been orally instructed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 to hand over possession of the land to them after June 14, 1972. That was how they took possession of the land, and it was not in pursuance of any conspiracy nor was possession taken illegally.

(2.) The trial Court decreed the suit and that was confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge on appeal. Both the lower Courts have found concurrently that the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 never gave up their rights in the suit lands and that possession of the suit land was taken unlawfully by the defendants. It was held by the lower Courts that under Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 could not be evicted and that they were entitled to the declaration sought by them and to recover the possession of the suit land.

(3.) In this second appeal Shri Gokal Chand Mittal learned counsel for the appellants argued that the lower Courts were wrong in decreeing the suit despite the fact that the period of lease had expired. He contended that the protection of Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act was available only to tenants if there was a subsisting tenancy, but such protection was not available to persons who had ceased to be the tenants by the expiry of the period for which the lease was granted.