LAKSHMI CHAND Vs. SHAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point involved in this petition for revision under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act) is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant terminates on the landlord obtaining an order of eviction under section 13 of the Act. The facts relevant for the purpose of determining the point are these :

(2.) Mr. Shamair Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the agreement between the parties did not have the effect of discharging or extinguishing the order of eviction, as the agreement merely related to the time or manner of its enforcement. Certain authorities are also cited in support of the contention. The position of law in this respect is absolutely clear and is not being disputed. According to the first agreement (Ex. P. 2) the landlord allowed the tenants to remain in possession of the shops for another year, meaning thereby that the order of ejectment was not to be executed till then. A similar agreement was arrived at in the course of the second execution proceedings and thereby the tenants were allowed to continue in possession till 1st August, 1960. The agreements merely postponed the performance of the order, they did not have the effect of creating a new tenancy or of discharging the order of eviction. That, however, does not, in any way, advance the case for the petitioner, for I see no force in Mr. Shamair Chand's second contention that the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end on the passing of the ejectment order, which still subsists and is enforceable. Sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act, under which the present application was presented reads :-

(3.) The expression 'tenant' is defined by section 2(i) to mean "any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenants, unless with the consent in writing of the landlord, or * * *". The definition leaves no doubt that a tenant continuing in possession even after the termination of the tenancy in his favour would still be a tenant for purposes of section 4 of the Act. So long as the tenant is not actually evicted he would, even though in the common parlance he may be regarded only as an ex-tenant, still fall within the above definition of a tenant. The only limitation is that he must not have lost possession; as long as the test of possession is satisfied, he is to be regarded as a tenant within the extended meaning for the purposes of the Act.