BALKAR SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER JULLUNDUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four petitioners, two each in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5989 of 1985 and 1698 of 1986, impugned the orders of their ejectment from the land in dispute purported to have been passed under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (in short the Act hereinafter) by Collector Batala and Commissioner Jullundur Division, Jullundur, impleaded amongst respondents. In view of the identity of facts and the contentions raised, these petitions are being disposed of through this common order.

(2.) The contention of the State precisely is that land was given on lease to the petitioners for one year (1969-70) and (1968-69) and after the lapse of contractual period of tenancy their possession became un-authorised. The petitioners, on the other hand, have pleaded that they continued to be in possession of the land as a result of which it turned into tenancy-at-will and without its determination, their possession could not be treated to be un-authorised so as to evict them under the Act. Thus it is the common case of the parties that to start with, a tenancy was created in favour of the petitioners and their possession cannot be said to be un-authorised from inception and also that term of the lease was one year. It is obvious from the revenue record that the petitioners continued to remain in possession even after the lapse of the contractual period of tenancy and they are recorded as tenants on 1/3rd share of produce right upto Jamabandi 1980-81. Apart from that, it has been mentioned in the order of the Collector that according to the representative of the department no rent had been paid by the petitioners since 1980, meaning thereby that rent was received by the concerned department till 1980, i.e. much after the lapse of contractual period of lease/tenancy. Where a lessee remains in possession of immovable property leased even after the expiry of the period of the lease and the lessor accepts rent from him or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, he would become by reason of the provisions of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act a tenant holding over. The tenancy created by the tenant holding over is a statutory tenancy which enables the tenant to retain possession after the expiry of the contractual tenancy. The statutory tenancy so created continues till it is terminated or determined. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary a statutory tenancy created under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act may be determined in the manner enjoined under Section 106 of the said Act. The lease of agricultural land is renewed from year to year and the tenancy created by holding over under Section 116 in this case, was, therefore, annual tenancy terminable on the part of either the lessor or the lessee by 6 months notice. The contention of lease being from year to year has also been asserted in the written statement. When the rent admittedly had been received for 10 years after April 1970, when according to the Government the lease had expired, petitioners obviously became tenants holding-over and without determination of their tenancy as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, their possession could not possibly be treated as un-authorised to entitle the Agricultural Department of the State of Punjab to take proceedings under the Act.

(3.) Petitioners also moved a writ petition in the year 1971 which was decided on October 29, 1971 (Annexure R-1) and recognising the contention of holding-over, respondents were restrained from evicting the petitioners otherwise than in due course of law. That confirms the continuity of possession and recognition of the principle of holding-over between the parties. It was also decided in Bir Singh v. The State of Punjab,1982 PunLJ 276, by this Court that determination of a lease has to be in accordance with law and in the absence thereof, the lessee can hold-over.