RAM KISHAN Vs. JIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for possession by pre-emption of the land in suit on the ground of the plaintiff-pre-emptors being tenants in possession of the land was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that long before the sale sought to be pre-empted a decree for eviction had been passed against the plaintiff-pre-emptors and that they had ceased to be tenants for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. An appeal filed by the pre-emptors was dismissed by the District Judge Rohtak, on 16th January, 1969, and the plaintiff-pre-emptors have come up in second appeal to this Court.

(2.) The judgment of the lower appellate Court suggests that the question of the sale price having been fixed in good faith or actually paid was not agitated in that Court. The finding of the trial Court that the sale price was proved to have been paid cannot, therefore, be agitated at this stage. The only question is whether the decree for eviction against the plaintiff-appellants which had been passed six or seven years before the sale puts an end to their right of pre-emptors had continued in possession as trespassers or tenants holding over upto the time of the filing of the pre-emption suits.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellants Shri S.P. Jain cited before me Bhag Singh V. Bhajan Singh and another,1968 PunLR 1046, Gurbachan Singh and others V. Bhagat Singh and others,1968 PunLR 553, and Sohan Singh V. Udho Ram and others, 1967 69 PunLR 414, which observed in general that where a tenant continues in possession, he would have a right of pre-emption. These general observations do not contemplate a case where an order of eviction had been passed against the tenant. These rulings are, therefore, of no help to the appellants in the present case. The other rulings Sham Sunder V. Ram Das,1951 PunLR 159(F.B.), and Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. V. Satya Niranjan Shaw and another, 1928 AIR(PC) 227, are under Rent Control Acts of other States and the question whether a person is a tenant or not would depend on the definition of that word given in those Acts. In the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the definition of tenant expressly excludes a person against whom an order of eviction has been passed. These definitions cannot, therefore, govern the interpretation of the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act or the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.