# 191Z • 386 SUl'itEME CXJURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. TEKAN ARD OTHERS v. GANESH I

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 386
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** P. B. Ga.Texdragadkah, A. K. Sarkar, K. ~. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/191z-386-sul-iteme-cxjurt-reports-1962-supp-tekan-ard-others-v-ganesh-i-2387
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

I.andlord an,/, Tenant-Smtrily of land 1'enures-landowner-Lcssee-Jlortgage-Teuanf -1.rJJser; not lando1cner-No ·
right to
ej1:ct-Punjab Security of Land 'l'F.nures Act, 19.53
(Punj"'' JO of l!Jo3), ss. 2 '.I), 9 (l); 14A ([)-East Punjab Displar.ed l'ersons /,rmd Re,.ettlcmui! Ac!, 194fl (East Punjab .16
of 1!14!1), •· 2-Pnnjah /,and Revwat Acl, ISS7 (Punjab 17 of
1887), .<s . .1 (2) 4 ('!)- Punjolr Tenancy Act, 1887 (Punja/) ]Ii of
1881).
The appellant is a lessee from the owner of the Janel and
hi" lease comprises a large area of land including the land oi
which the rc•pondent is the tenant.
The appellant applied
to the Assistant Collector under s. 14A (I) read with s. 9 (I}
of the Punjab Security of Land ·rr.nurcs Act for the ejectment
of the respondent on the ground that the appellant was a land
o\vner and he required the land for his O\vn cultivation. The
application \\'as allov.·cd. 1,hc responJcnt thereupon appealed to
the Collector alleginl.{ as the main ground that only a landowner
could dispossess a tcnant·at-v..·ill and that since the appellant
was not a landowner within the meaning of S· 2 (I) of the Act
was r.ot entitled IU ask for ejr.r.tment under s. 14A (I). The
Collector accepted this contention and allowed the appeal.
'!'hereafter the appellant appealed to the Cornmissioner who
allowed the appeal on the ground that a lessee being like a
mortgagee with possession was a landowner for all purposes.
On revision the Financial Commissioner Jield that the appcl1.ant was not a lanrlowner anti therefore not entitled to cjectmr.nt.
The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave.
The only contention that \-.·a:i urged in the appeal was that
appellant was a lando\vner \vithin the meaning of s. 2(1).
H(',fd, a'> a lessee the appellant holds land under another
person na1nely the O\Vner of the land fro1n whom he has taken
the lease and is liable to pay rent. l'he app~llant therefore being a tenant \Vithin s.4 (5) of the Punjab 1,enancy Act cannot
he a lando\..-ner under s.3(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act
or a landowner \\·ithin the mean in~ of s. 2 ( 1) of the Punjab
Sc'.Curity of Land Tenures :\ct. Hence he is not entitled to
eject the respondent.
..
-
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 387
CrVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No 367 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgme~t
and order dated November 23, 1957, of t,he Add1tion<il Commissioner Punjab, in Revision No. 143
of 1956-57.
I. M. Lal and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appel.
lants.
Achhru Ram and K. L. Mehta, for the responde t.
·
1962. February 22.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave from the order of the Financial Commissioner
Punjab in respect of the application made by the
appellant under s. 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of
Land Tenures Act, No, X of 1953, (hereinafter
referred to as the Act), read with s. 9 (l) thereof,
for ejectment of the respondent, on th6 ground that
he was a smaH landowner. The appellant claimed
that he was the landowner and the respondent was
a tenant-at-will under him. He therefore claimed
ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he
had less than thirty standard acres and required the
land for his oW-U cultivation. The application was
filed before the Assistant Collector who held that
the respondent was liable to ejectment and allowed
the application. Thereupon there was an appeal
by the respondent to the Collector and it was urged
there that only a landowner could dispossess a
tenant-at-will under s. 14-A, (i) and as the appellant
was not a landowner but merely a landlord of the
respondent he was not entitied to the benefit of
s. 14-A(i). The Collector accepted this contention
and held that the appellant was not a landowner
and therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the
a,Ptllication fOl' ejectment. The appellant then went
1962
Tekan
v.
Gamshi
Wanc1ioo J
196;!
1tk.G11
v.
Ga11t1lzi
Wa11clioo J.
' .
388
SUPRE~IE COURT REPORTS (!!JOO] SUPP.
in appeal to the Com

## Text

191Z •
386 SUl'itEME CXJURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
TEKAN ARD OTHERS
v.
GANESH I
(P. B. GA.TEXDRAGADKAH, A. K. SARKAR and
K. ~. WANCHOO, J,J.)
I.andlord an,/, Tenant-Smtrily of land 1'enures-landowner-Lcssee-Jlortgage-Teuanf -1.rJJser; not lando1cner-No ·
right to
ej1:ct-Punjab Security of Land 'l'F.nures Act, 19.53
(Punj"'' JO of l!Jo3), ss. 2 '.I), 9 (l); 14A ([)-East Punjab Displar.ed l'ersons /,rmd Re,.ettlcmui! Ac!, 194fl (East Punjab .16
of 1!14!1), •· 2-Pnnjah /,and Revwat Acl, ISS7 (Punjab 17 of
1887), .<s . .1 (2) 4 ('!)- Punjolr Tenancy Act, 1887 (Punja/) ]Ii of
1881).
The appellant is a lessee from the owner of the Janel and
hi" lease comprises a large area of land including the land oi
which the rc•pondent is the tenant.
The appellant applied
to the Assistant Collector under s. 14A (I) read with s. 9 (I}
of the Punjab Security of Land ·rr.nurcs Act for the ejectment
of the respondent on the ground that the appellant was a land
o\vner and he required the land for his O\vn cultivation. The
application \\'as allov.·cd. 1,hc responJcnt thereupon appealed to
the Collector alleginl.{ as the main ground that only a landowner
could dispossess a tcnant·at-v..·ill and that since the appellant
was not a landowner within the meaning of S· 2 (I) of the Act
was r.ot entitled IU ask for ejr.r.tment under s. 14A (I). The
Collector accepted this contention and allowed the appeal.
'!'hereafter the appellant appealed to the Cornmissioner who
allowed the appeal on the ground that a lessee being like a
mortgagee with possession was a landowner for all purposes.
On revision the Financial Commissioner Jield that the appcl1.ant was not a lanrlowner anti therefore not entitled to cjectmr.nt.
The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave.
The only contention that \-.·a:i urged in the appeal was that
appellant was a lando\vner \vithin the meaning of s. 2(1).
H(',fd, a'> a lessee the appellant holds land under another
person na1nely the O\Vner of the land fro1n whom he has taken
the lease and is liable to pay rent. l'he app~llant therefore being a tenant \Vithin s.4 (5) of the Punjab 1,enancy Act cannot
he a lando\..-ner under s.3(2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act
or a landowner \\·ithin the mean in~ of s. 2 ( 1) of the Punjab
Sc'.Curity of Land Tenures :\ct. Hence he is not entitled to
eject the respondent.
..
-
3S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 387
CrVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No 367 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgme~t
and order dated November 23, 1957, of t,he Add1tion<il Commissioner Punjab, in Revision No. 143
of 1956-57.
I. M. Lal and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appel.
lants.
Achhru Ram and K. L. Mehta, for the responde t.
·
1962. February 22.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special
leave from the order of the Financial Commissioner
Punjab in respect of the application made by the
appellant under s. 14-A(i) of the Punjab Security of
Land Tenures Act, No, X of 1953, (hereinafter
referred to as the Act), read with s. 9 (l) thereof,
for ejectment of the respondent, on th6 ground that
he was a smaH landowner. The appellant claimed
that he was the landowner and the respondent was
a tenant-at-will under him. He therefore claimed
ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he
had less than thirty standard acres and required the
land for his oW-U cultivation. The application was
filed before the Assistant Collector who held that
the respondent was liable to ejectment and allowed
the application. Thereupon there was an appeal
by the respondent to the Collector and it was urged
there that only a landowner could dispossess a
tenant-at-will under s. 14-A, (i) and as the appellant
was not a landowner but merely a landlord of the
respondent he was not entitied to the benefit of
s. 14-A(i). The Collector accepted this contention
and held that the appellant was not a landowner
and therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the
a,Ptllication fOl' ejectment. The appellant then went
1962
Tekan
v.
Gamshi
Wanc1ioo J
196;!
1tk.G11
v.
Ga11t1lzi
Wa11clioo J.
' .
388
SUPRE~IE COURT REPORTS (!!JOO] SUPP.
in appeal to the Commissioner. It may be mentioned that the appellant is a lessco from the owner
of the land and his lease comprises a larger area
of land including the land of which the rospondent
is the tenant. Thu contention on behalf of the
appellant before the Commissioner was that he was
a landowner within the meaning of that word in
s. 2 (I) of the Act and was therefore entitled to
eject the respondent. The Commissioner held that
the position of a lessee was just like a rnortgageo
with possession and that a lessee was a landowner
for all purposrs.
He therefore allowed the appcid
and restored the. order of ejcctmcnt passed hy the
Assistant Collector.
Thereupon
the n'spondcnt
went in revision to the Financial Commissioner,
who held that a mere lessee with only constructive
possession as in this case could not be included in
tho term "landowner" as used in the Act, and that
even if tho appellant was tho landlord of the res·
pondent he could not be held to be a landowner
within the meaning of the Act.
He therefore
allowed the revision, snt aside tho. order of the
Commissioner and restored that of the Collector
dismissing the appellant's application for ejcctment.
This was followed by an application by the appellant tu thi.e Co.urt for special leave, which was
granted; and that is how the mattor has come up
before us.
The only question that has been urged on be-.
half of the appellant before us-is that. the Financial
Commissioner went wrong in holding that he was
not a landowner. The question whether tho appe·
Hant. is a landowner or not depends upon the
definition of that term in the Act, which is. in theee
terms:-
"(I) 'Landowner' mean8 a person defined
as such in tho Punjab Land Revenue Act,
1887, ( Aot XVII of 1887), and shall include an
'allottee' and 'lessee' as defined in clauses (b)
and (c) respectively of section 2 of the East
..
•
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
38\l
Punjab Displaced PersonR
(Land Resettlement) Act, 1949, (Act XXXVI of 1949) hereinafter referred to as the 'Resettlement Act'.
Explanation-In respect of land mortgaged with possession, the mortgagee shall be
deemed to be the lando\\ ner."
It is not in dispute that the appellant is not an
allottee or a lessee as defined in els. (b) and (c) of
s. 2 of the East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land
Resettlement) Act, (No. XXXVIof 1949). It is also
not in dispute. that the appellant is not a mortgagee
with possession. Therefore he can only claim to be
a landowner within this definition if he is a landowner as defined in the Punjab Land Revenue Act,
(No. XVII of 1887). In that Act the definition of
the word "landowner" as given in s. 3 (2) is in these
terms:-
" 'landowner' does not include a tenant
or an assignee of land revenue, but does include a· person to whom a holding has been
transferred, or an estate or holding has been
let in farm under this Act for the recovery of
an arrear of land-revenue or of a sum recoverable as such as arrear and every other person
not hereinbefore in this clause mentioned who
is in possession of an estate or any share or
portion thereof or in the enjoyment of any
part of the profits of an estate."
The co;ntention on behalf of the appellant is
that he must be held to be a landowner within the
meaning of this sub-section as he is in the enjoyment of the part of the profits . of the estate. It is
obvious that the last part of the definition on which
this argument is based applies to persons who are
other than tenants and assignees of land revenue,
and so we will have to determine whether the appe.
Hant is a tenant; if he is, he is not a landowner. We
have therefore to go to the Punjab Tenancy Act,
(No. XVI of 1887), to fj.nd O!Jt who is a tenant, a11-q
Tekoii
v.
GlUltJhi
Wanchoo J.
19G2
T1kan
v.
Oaneshi
···anchoo J.
Mo SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962] Su1>.P.
whether the appellan.t is a tenant, within that Act.
Definition of "tenant" in s. ! (5) of that Act is as
follows:-
·
"(5)
'tenant' means a person who holds
land under another person, and is, or but for
a special contract would be, liable to pay rent
for that land to that other person but it does
not include-
(a) an inferior landowner, or
(b) a mortga~ee of the rights of a landowner, or
(c) a person to whom a holding has been
transferred, or an estate or holding has been
let in farm under the Punjab Land Revenue
Act, 1887 for the recovery of an arrear of
land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such
an arrear, or
(d) a person who takes from the Government a lease of unoccupied land for the purpose of sublettillg it;".
.
It is not in dispute that the appellant does not
come within the four exceptions mPntioned in this
sub-section. It has therefore to be seen whether
the appellant is a person who holds land under
another person and is, or but for a special contract
..
would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that
-
other person. We are of opinion that the appellant
satisfies this definition of the term · "temmt" in
s. 4 ( 5).
As a lcBBee be holds land undei another
person, namely, tho owner of the land from whom
he has taken the lease and is liable to pay rent
equal to the lease money for the land which he has
taken on lease to that other person. The appellant
is therefore clearly a tenant within s. 4 (5) of the
Punjab Tenancy Act. He cannot therefore be a
landowner under s. 3 (2) of tho
Punjab Land
Itevenue Aot,
Incidentally wo may add that this
conclusion is borne out by the fact that in tho copy
of the Girdwari entries, the appellant is shown as a
' '
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COuRT REPoRTS
391
tenant, the entry being "Tekan and others, Gairmaurasian first through G~neshi Gair Maurasi secondhalf. The appellant is thus a tenant of the land of
which he has taken lease and cannot be a landowner.
keeping in view the definition of that term in the
Act and in the Punjab L.and Revenue Act. The
appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with
costs.
Appeal dismissed.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY
CITY I, BOMBAY
v.
BAI SHIRINBAI K. KOOKA
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
A. K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAo, K. N. WANCHOO
and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Income-tax-Profits-Shares purchased by assessee for
investment-Sales of Shares subsequently as trading activityOomputation of profit.
The assessee purchased shares by way of investment in
1939-40 at a cost price which was much less than their market
value on April I, 1945. Her dividend income therefrom was
assessed to income tax. In the financial year 1945-46 the
assessee converted these shares iuto her stock-in-trade and
carried on business in the shares. Per income for the assessment
year 1946-47 was computed on the basis of the profits which
she made by the sale of her shares as a trading activity. The
assessee contended that the cost price of the shares for compu·
ting the profits was their market value at the beginning of the
year when she started the trading activity, i.e., on April I,
1945. The Department contended that the cost Price of the
shares was the actual price for which they were purchased by
the assessee, no matter when she bought them and for what
purpose.
Held (per Das, Kapur, Gajendragadkar, Suhba Rao,
Wanchoo and Ayyangar, JJ. Sarkar, J., contra), •h•t the profits
IS62
Tekon·
v.
Gtineshi
Wonchoo J.
1962
February 23.