# BHAJAN LAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] 2 S.C.R. 497
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-09-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1338 of 1967
- **Bench:** C. Shah Anp A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhajan-lal-v-state-of-punjab-ors-5156
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Punjab ,Security of
Land Tenures Act of
1953 ss.
l4A
18Applications for ejectment by landlord, and for purchase of land by
tenant-I/ tenant's applicr:tion can be ard"ed,
The appellant instituted a proceeding in ejectment under s. 14A of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 but before orders were passed
on the application, the tenant initiate.d a proceeding under s. 18 exetcising
his right to purchase the land.
The two proceedings ended in orders
dismissing the ejection application and .declaring the tenant entitled to
purchase the land. On the question whether the tenant's application couldbe granted.
HELD : Under s. 18 of the Act if a tenant bad remained in continuous occupation of the land for a minimum period of six years ·he is
entitled to purchase the land on payroent of the compensation determined.
Under s. l4A, the landowner may obtain possession of the land on the
ground of non-payment of rent by a proceeding filed before the Assistant
Collector. If the tenant, after notice, fails to pay the. rent or give. proof
of payment, the Assistant Collectorshall after a summary inquiry, eject
the tenant and put the landowner in possession.
But so long as the
Assistant Collector has not passed the ejectment order, the tenant's right
is not extinguished; he contioues ti> be a tenant and being a tenant is
entitled to exercise his right of purchase. (501 C-G]
In the present case, before the Assistant Collector passed an order in
ejectment, the tenant exercised his right to purchase the land, and that
right would not be defeated merely because, on a subsequent date, an
order of ejectment was passed against him. He is entitled to purchase
the land on payment of the amount 1lf compensation together with the
amount ·Of rent due by him. {501 G-H; 502 BJ
Har Sarup v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, (1965) 44
Lah. L.T. 157, approved.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
497
BHAJAN LAL
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
September 28, 1970
(J, C. SHAH ANP A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Punjab ,Security of
Land Tenures Act of
1953 ss.
l4A
18Applications for ejectment by landlord, and for purchase of land by
tenant-I/ tenant's applicr:tion can be ard"ed,
The appellant instituted a proceeding in ejectment under s. 14A of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 but before orders were passed
on the application, the tenant initiate.d a proceeding under s. 18 exetcising
his right to purchase the land.
The two proceedings ended in orders
dismissing the ejection application and .declaring the tenant entitled to
purchase the land. On the question whether the tenant's application couldbe granted.
HELD : Under s. 18 of the Act if a tenant bad remained in continuous occupation of the land for a minimum period of six years ·he is
entitled to purchase the land on payroent of the compensation determined.
Under s. l4A, the landowner may obtain possession of the land on the
ground of non-payment of rent by a proceeding filed before the Assistant
Collector. If the tenant, after notice, fails to pay the. rent or give. proof
of payment, the Assistant Collectorshall after a summary inquiry, eject
the tenant and put the landowner in possession.
But so long as the
Assistant Collector has not passed the ejectment order, the tenant's right
is not extinguished; he contioues ti> be a tenant and being a tenant is
entitled to exercise his right of purchase. (501 C-G]
In the present case, before the Assistant Collector passed an order in
ejectment, the tenant exercised his right to purchase the land, and that
right would not be defeated merely because, on a subsequent date, an
order of ejectment was passed against him. He is entitled to purchase
the land on payment of the amount 1lf compensation together with the
amount ·Of rent due by him. {501 G-H; 502 BJ
Har Sarup v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, (1965) 44
Lah. L.T. 157, approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1338 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated March 7, 1967
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 326 of
1967.
B .. R. L. Iyengar, R. L. Kohli and /. C. Talwar, for the appellant.
S. C. Manchanda, M. L. Aggarwal and N. K. Aggarwal, for
H
respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. Bhajan Lal was the owner of land measuring 21
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 2 S.C.R.
bighas 2 biswas and bearing Khasra Nos. 11/12, 18, 20 and 43
in village Sukhchen. Shadi was the tenant ·Of the land for agricultural use. Alleging that Shadi had failed to pay the rent due
by him for the period Kharif Season 1957 to Rabi Season 1960,
Bhajan Lal applied under s. 14-A of the Punjab Secuiity of
Land Tenures Act, 1953, to the Assistant Collector for an order
in ejectment against Shadi.
The application was dismissed by
the Assistant Collector and that order was confirmed in appeal
by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner set aside the
order and remanded the case· for a fresh decision by order dated
January 8, 1962.
There was yet another proceeding regarding the same lands.
On February 20, 1961 Shadi applied to the Assistant Collector
to purchase the lands Uinder s. 18·. of the Punjab Security of
- Land Tenures Act, 1953. The Assistant Collector rejected the
application.
The Collector confirmed that order.
By
order
dated October 5, 1962, the Financial Commissioner remanded the
case for determining whether Shadi was in occupation of the
lands for six years before the date of the petition.
The Assistant Collector held that Shadi could claim to purchase the lands under s. 18 of the
Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Act, 1953 on paying Rs. 8,409/- in ten equal instalments to Bhajan Lal. The Assistant Collector held in the proceeding for ejectment started by Bhajan Lal that the tenant Shadi
had without sufficient cause committed default in paying rent
and ordered that he be evicted. The two order5 were passed on
April 30, 1964.
Whereas in the proceeding started by Bhajan
Lal he held that Shadi was liable to be evicted from the lands
because he had without sufficient cause committed default in
paying rent, in the proceeding filed by Shadi the Assistant Collector declared that Shadi was entitled to purchase the lands from
Bhajan Lal.
The two orders were challenged respectively by
Shadi and Bhajan Lal in revision applications filed before the
Additional Commissioner.
The Additional Commissioner set
aside the order in favour of Shadi and dismised the application
filed by Shadi.
In a revision applicatiqn, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order of ejectment against Shadi and
restored the order of the Collector declaring him entitled to purchase the lands.
Against the order whereby Shadi was declared entitled
to
purchase the lands, Bhajan Lal applied to the High Court of
Punjab for an order setting aside the order of the
Financial
Commissioner. The High Court dismissed the petition in /imine.
Bhajan Lal has appealed to this Court with special Leave.
Section 9 ( 1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,
1953 provides :
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
BHAJAN LAL V. PUNJAB STATE (Shah, i.)
499
''Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, no landowner shall be
competent to eject a tenant except when such tenant-
(i) is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act
or is a tenant of a small landowner; or
(ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient
cause; or
(iii) is in arrears of rent at the commencement of
this Act; or
(iv) has failed, or fails, without silflicient cause, to
C
cultivate the land comprised in his tenancy in
the manner or to the extent customary in the
locality in which the land is situate; or
( v) has used, or uses the land comprised in
his
tenancy in a manner which has rendered, or
renders it unfit for the purpose for which he
D
holds it; or
E
F
G
H
(vi) has sublet the tenancy or a part thereof; provided that where only a part of the tenancy
has been sublet, the tenant shall be liable to be
ejected only from such part; or
(vii) refuses to execute a Qabuliyat or a Patt a, in the
form prescribed, in respect of his tenancy on
being called upon to do. so by an Assistant
Collector on an application to him for this purpose by the landowner.
Explanation.-For the purpose of clause
(iii), a
tenant shall be deemed to be in arrears of rent
at the commencement of this Act, only if the payment of arrears is not made by the tenant withiii.
a period of two months from the date of
notice of the execution of decree or order, directing him to pay such arrears of rent.n
Section 14~A of the Act insofar as it is relevant provides:
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Jaw for the time being in force, and
subject to the provisions of section 9-A,-
(i) a land-owner desiring to eject a tenant under
this Act shall apply in writing to the Assistant
Collector First Grade, having jurisdiction, who
shall the;eafter proceed as provided for in sub-
.500
•
(ii)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 2 S.C.R.
section ( 2) of Section 10 of this Act, and the
provisions of sub-section (3) of the said se~
tion .shall also apply in relation to such apphcation,
•
•
•
a land-owner desiring to recover
arrears of
rent from a tenant shall apply in writing to the
Assistant Collector, Second Grade, having jurisdiction, who shall thereupon send a notice, in
the form prescribed, to the tenant either to deposit the rent or value thereof, if payable in
k~nd, or give proof of having paid it or of the
fact that he is not liable to pay the whole or
part of the rent, or of the fact of ·the landlord's refusal to receive the same or to give a
receipt, within the period specified in the notice.
*
*
*
*
Section 18 of the Act, insofar as it is relevant provides :
"(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract, a ten.ant of a
land-owner other than a small land-ownerA
B
c
D
(i) who has been in continuous occupation of the
E
land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum
period of six years, or
(ii) who has been restored to his tenancy under the
provisions of this Act and whose periods
of
continuous occupation of the land comprised in
his tenancy immediately before ejectment and
F
immediately after restoration of his tenancy together amounts to six years or more, or
(iii) •
•
•
•
shall be entitled to purchase from the land-owner the
land so held by him but not · includeci in the reserved
area of the land-owner, in the case of a tenant falling
within clause· (i) or clanse (ii) at any time, and in
the case of a tenant falling within clause (iii) within
a period of one year from the date of commencement of
this Act:
•
•
•
•
'By virtue of s. 14-A the land-owner may obtain possession of the
land on the ground of non-payment of rent by a proceeding.
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
RHAJAN LAL v. PUNJAB STATE (Shah, /.)
501.
filed before the Assistant Collector, during the subsistence of the
tenancy. If the tenant has remained in continuous occupation of
the land for a minimum period of six years he is entitled to
purchase the land under s. 18 of the Act.
It was urged that since s. 18 commence with a non obstante
clause, viz. "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any law, usage or contract'', if a proceeding in ejectment is
lodged against the tenant which ultimately is allowed, the tenant
cannot make a claim during the pendcncy of the proceeding
·to purchase the land.
To hold otherwise, it was urged, would
enable a tenant in default to defeat the claim in a suit in ejectment by commencing a proceeding for purchasing the land.
We
do not think that the expression "Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any law, usage or contract" whittles down
the right of the tenant at the date when he makes a claim to.
purchase the land merely becau1.e the tenancy is liable
to be
terminated in a proceeding then pending for an order in ejectment under s. 14-A, at the instance of the land-owner.
Under
the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely because
a proceeding in ejectment is instituted.
The tenancy is ~eter
mined only in the conditions prescribed by s. 9 !ind in the manner provided by s. 14-A. If a tenant is in default in payment
of rent the land-owner desiring to recover rent due
by
the
tenant may apply in writing to the Assistant Collector who shall
thereupon send a notice to the tenant to deposit the rent due
or give proof of having paid it. If the tenant fails fo pay the
rent or give proof of payment, the Assistant
Collector
shall,
after a summary inquiry, if he is of the view that the tenant has
not paid or deposited the rent, eject the tenant summarily and·
put the land-owner in possession of the land concerned.
But
so long as the Assistant Collector has not passed
the order
'ejecting the tenant the right of the tenant is not exinguished:
he continues to remain a tenant and being a tenant he is entitled to exercise his right to purchase the land.
Shadi was a tenant prior to the date of. the institution by
G
Bhajan Lal of the proceeding in ejectment and he continued
to remain a tenant till an order was passed by the
Assistant
Collector on April 30, 1964. But before that date Shadi had
exercised his right to purchase the land and that right to purchase the land would not be defeated merely because on a date
subsequent thereto an order in ejectment was passed against him ..
H
Shadi, had therefore, at the date when he initiated proceeding
under s. 18 right to purchase the land. By the subsequent order
in ejectment made against him the statutory right of Shadi was
.
not prejudicially affected.
5-U36 Sop.CJ/71
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(197 l] 2 S.C.R.
We agree with the observations of Mahajan,
J., in Har
Sarup and Anr. v.
The Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab(1) at p. 159:
"But, at the time when section 18 application was
filed, no order for eviction had been passed.
Therefore, at that time, the relationship
of landlord and
tenant did exist.
Mr. Daulta has not been able to
point to. me any provision of Jaw which would make
the eviction decree operative from the date oJ' the eviction
application. ·.The mere fact that the tenants had incurred the liability for eviction by reason of non-payment
of rent would not put an end to the admitted relarionship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
This
liabiliiy only puts an end to the aforesaid relationship
when the eviction decree is passed.
The eviction
decree was passed Jong after the section 18 application.
Therefore, the present petition is liable to succeed only
to have extent of section 18 application, that is, the
ienants would be entitled to purchase the land. * * * *"
But a slight modification needs to be made in the order. A
proceeding for recovery of rent was commenced against Shadi.
It is l'lOt clear whether the amount of compensation determined
by the Assistant Collector as payable by Shadi for purchasing
the land includes the rent in arrears.
w~ declare that
Shadi
will be entitled to purchase the land on payment of the amount
of compensation together with the amount of rent due by him.
The Assistant Collecior will pass appropriate order in that b.ehalf and direct that payment be made in appropriate instalments
under s. 18(4)(a).
Subject to that modification, the appeal fails and is dismissed
with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
(I) (1965) 44 Lah. Law Times 157
A
B
c
D
E
F