CHARNO DEVI Vs. DALI MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question arising for determination in this case is that whether in the absence of the persons mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) in section 45 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Act No. 8 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the right of a deceased non -occupancy tenant in the land held by him shall stand extinguished or will such a right devolve on the other heirs, in accordance with the general law of succession.

(2.) In order to answer the question, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case. The suit property, owned by the plaintiff -respondents is an agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals 10 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 1195/222/223, situate in village Bharolian Khurd, Tehsil and District Una. It was occupied by Shri Bhagwana the father of the appellants, as a non -occupancy tenant on payment of rent under the owners. Bhagwana died on 4th February, 1975. According to the plaintiffs, on the death of Bhagwana there was no person available on whom the rights of tenancy under section 45 of the Act could devolve. Defendant -appellants being the daughters had no right to inherit the rights of tenancy and. as such, the tenancy stood extinguished and the owners became entitled to get back the possession of the land from the defendants, who had come in its occupation. With this background, suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs on 6th July, 1976. The suit was resisted by the defendants, who claimed that Bhagwana had acquired permanent occupancy rights and on coming into force of the Act had become its owner. All rights, title and interest of the land owners had come to an end on coming into force of the Act. On the death of Bhagwana, which took place after the coming into force of the Act, they as daughters had lawfully succeeded to the property and as such were entitled to continue in occupation of the same. In the alternative, it was also pleaded by them that in case Bhagwana is not held to have become owner during his life time, on his death, the owners had accepted them as tenants and were thus precluded from claiming possession.

(3.) The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that Bhagwana had not acquired the occupancy rights, but he was only a non -occupancy tenant. Succession to the rights of tenancy would be governed by section 45 of the Act. Defendants being daughters do not fall in any of the categories of heirs specified in section 45 of the Act, therefore, in the absence of any heir, the tenancy rights would revert back to the owners. It was also held that Bhagwana died after coming into force of the Act but he had not become the owner of the property since rights, title and interest of a land -owner in the land held by a non -occupancy tenant, by virtue of section 104 (3) of the Act would come to an end and vest in the tenant, on or from the date to be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette, which in this case was 3rd October, 1975, when the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 came into force. Bhagwana had died earlier and in the absence of any person, as specified in Clauses (a) to (d)n section 45 of the Act on whom the tenancy rights could devolve, the same stood extinguished and the defendants had no right, title or interest to hold back possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court.