SALIG RAM Vs. SHAMA NAND ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's second appeal arising out of proceedings under Sec. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.

(2.) The Appellant applied under Sec. 11 (1) of the aforesaid Act for the grant of proprietary rights in a parcel of land of which the Respondents were landowners. The Compensation Officer rejected the application holding that the Appellant had not proved the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. An appeal against that order has been dismissed by the learned District Judge. And now this second appeal.

(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties it appears to me that the appeal must fail. Sec. 2 (17) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act defines the expression "tenant" as "a person who holds land under another person, and is, or but for a contract to the contrary would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other person". The definition excludes a mortgagee of the rights of the landowner. While the Appellant contends that he is a tenant, the Respondents urge that they had mortgaged the land to him. In either event, there can be no dispute that the Appellant can be said to "hold" land, inasmuch as on the case of either party there is a transfer of interest in the land. The question really is whether the Appellant is liable to pay rent or but for a contract to the contrary would be liable to pay rent. If that is established the Appellant must be held to be a tenant. The Appellant relies on the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1964 -65 which show him in possession as 'Gair Maurusi' and in the column "Bila Adai Lagan Bawaja Razamandi". As to the entries, the tenant claims that he is a non -occupancy tenant and is not liable to pay rent because of an agreement between him and the landowners. It is urged that the entries raise a presumption in favour of the Appellant. But the entries are inconsistent with the case of the Appellant. The case of the Appellant is that the Appellant gave two measures of grain periodically to the landowners and that this was payment of rent in kind. On the case set up by the Appellant he is not entitled to rely on the entries in the Jamabandi mentioned above. So far as the payment of rent in kind is concerned, there is no evidence of any consistent pattern of such payment indicating a constant periodic liability. It seems to me that the Appellant has failed to prove that he was a tenant of the landowners.