# JAIMAL & ANR v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1969] 2 S.C.R. 210
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-09-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2354 of 1966
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jaimal-anr-v-financial-commissioner-punjab-ors-4486
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Punj. 10 of 1953), s. 18Sub-tenant whether entit1£d to purchase land from landowner.
The appellants, who had been. in occupation of certain agricultural
lands for more than 30 years as sub-tenants, applied under s. 18 of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 to purchase the lands. The
final authority under the Act, held that the appellants were not entitled
to purchase the land. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High
Court. The High Court he<ld that the appellants being sub-tenants were
not entitled to apply under s. 18 of the Act. Dismissing the appeal, this
Court, •
.
HELD : The Legislature did not intend to confer any rights under
s. 18 on the sub-ten.ant.
B
c
The word 'landowner' is defined ins. 2(1) of the Act to mean a person
D·
defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Under
the
latter Act, a landowner does not include a tenant. The definitions of
the words 'tenant' and 'land-owner', make it clear that a tenant of .a
tenant cannot be a tenant of the land-owner, Further, [213 G; 214 El
(a) The first proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 18 makes it clear that a
tenant who has sublet the land or a portion, as the case may be, to
any other person during the period of his continuous occupation is disE:
abled ftom applyin.g under s. 18 unless during the period of his continuous occupation the tenant was suffering from legal disability or physical infirmity ot if a woman w<rs a widow or was unmarried; [214 E-FJ
(b) If it was intended that a sub-tenant should be entitled to purchase under s. 18, some provision in the Act would have been. there to
solve the difficulties which would arise if there was competition between
the tenant and the sub-tenant; [215 A-Bl
F.
( c) If the contention of the appellant was correct, the
sub-tenant
would become the own.er of the land under s. 18(4) (b) on the purchase
price being deposited. No satisfactory answer was given ·as to what will
then happen to the rights of the tenant; and [215 C]
( d) Section 18 ( 5) re fern to mortgage of the land but it does not
refer to the mortgage of the rights of a tenant. [215 DJ
G;

## Text

210
JAIMAL & ANR.
v.
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB & ORS.
September 25, 1968
[S. M. SIKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.]
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Punj. 10 of 1953), s. 18Sub-tenant whether entit1£d to purchase land from landowner.
The appellants, who had been. in occupation of certain agricultural
lands for more than 30 years as sub-tenants, applied under s. 18 of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 to purchase the lands. The
final authority under the Act, held that the appellants were not entitled
to purchase the land. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High
Court. The High Court he<ld that the appellants being sub-tenants were
not entitled to apply under s. 18 of the Act. Dismissing the appeal, this
Court, •
.
HELD : The Legislature did not intend to confer any rights under
s. 18 on the sub-ten.ant.
B
c
The word 'landowner' is defined ins. 2(1) of the Act to mean a person
D·
defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Under
the
latter Act, a landowner does not include a tenant. The definitions of
the words 'tenant' and 'land-owner', make it clear that a tenant of .a
tenant cannot be a tenant of the land-owner, Further, [213 G; 214 El
(a) The first proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 18 makes it clear that a
tenant who has sublet the land or a portion, as the case may be, to
any other person during the period of his continuous occupation is disE:
abled ftom applyin.g under s. 18 unless during the period of his continuous occupation the tenant was suffering from legal disability or physical infirmity ot if a woman w<rs a widow or was unmarried; [214 E-FJ
(b) If it was intended that a sub-tenant should be entitled to purchase under s. 18, some provision in the Act would have been. there to
solve the difficulties which would arise if there was competition between
the tenant and the sub-tenant; [215 A-Bl
F.
( c) If the contention of the appellant was correct, the
sub-tenant
would become the own.er of the land under s. 18(4) (b) on the purchase
price being deposited. No satisfactory answer was given ·as to what will
then happen to the rights of the tenant; and [215 C]
( d) Section 18 ( 5) re fern to mortgage of the land but it does not
refer to the mortgage of the rights of a tenant. [215 DJ
G;
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2354 of
1966.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 1963 of the
Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 1559 of 1962.
M. C. Chagla and Janardan Sharma, for the appellants.
Hl
B. C. Misra, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta,. for respondent
No. 3.
\
·-
'
~-
\
•
-.
)
JAIMAL V. FINANCIAL COMMR. (Sikri, J.)
211
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J. This appeal by certificate granted to the appellants
by the High Court of Punjab under Art. 133(1) (c) of the Constitution raises one point, namely, whether a sub-tenant is entitled
to purchase the land from the land-owner under s. 18 of the
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Punj. Act X of 1953)-
hereinafter referred to as the Act.
It would be sufficient to give few
facts.
The appellants,
J aimal and Ram Singh, applied under s. 18 of the Act to the
Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Hissar, to purchase 280 kanals 4
mar/as of land situate in village Mehnda, Tehsil Hansi, District
C
Hissar.
The land was originally owned by respondents. Nos. 4
to 10, who had given this land on lease to Sheo Parshad, respondent No. 3.
It is not in dispute that the appellants and their
fathers had been in occupation of the land in dispute for the last
30 years, as sub-tenants under Sheo Parshad, respondent No. 3.
During the pendency of the application, respondents Nos. 4 to 10
D
sold the land in dispute, on October 25, 1957, to Sheo Parshad,
and also in favour of his two sons.
The Assistant Collector, by
his order dated November 30, 1959, accepted the application of
the appellants and allowed them to purchase 274 kanals of land
for Rs. 6,730/-.
On appeal, the Collector varied the order but
the variation is not material for the purpose of this appeal.
The
appellants then preferred an appeal to the Commissioner and Sheo
E Parshad filed Revision Petition to him against the order of the
Collector. The Commissioner upheld the claim of the appellants
to purchase the land under s. 18 of the Act at the price assessed
by the Assistant Collector, but he modified the order in respect of
85 kanals 8 mar/as which had been sold to the sons of Sheo Parshad.
The final order in the proceedings was passed by the
F
Financial Commissioner who, by his order dated August 27, 1962,
held that the appellants were not entitled to purchase the land
under s. 18 of the Act.
Thereupon the appellants filed a petition
under Art. 226 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the order of
the Financial Commissioner.
The High Court was also of the
opinion that the appellants being sub-tenants were not entitled toG
apply under s. 18 of the Act.
H
The answer to the question whether the appellants are entitled
to apply under s. 18 of the Act depends upon the interpretation
of s. 18, which reads as fol!ows :
"18. Right of certain tenants to purchase land.
( 1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract, a tenant of a landowner other than a small land-owner-
-212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 2 s.C.R.
( i) who has been in continuous occupation of the
land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period
of six years, or
(ii) who has been restored to his tenancy under
the provisions o,f this Act and whose periods of continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy
immediately before ejectment and immediately
after
restoration of his tenancy together amourit to six years
or more, or
(iii) who was ejected from his tenancy after the
14th day of August, 1947, and before the commencement of this Act who was in continuous occupation o.f
the land comprised in his tenancy for a period of six
years or more immediately before his ejectment,
shall be entitled to purchase from the land-owner
the land so held by him but not included in the reserved
area o.f the land-owner, in the case of a tenant falling
within clause (i) or clause (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:
Provided that no tenant referred to in this
subsection shall be entitled to exercise any such right in
respect of the land or any portion thereof, if he had
Bublet the land or the portion, as the case may be, to
any other person, during any period of his continuous
occupation, unless during that period the tenant was
suffering from a legal disability or physical infirmity, or
if a woman, was a widow or was unmarried;
Provided further that i·f the land intended to be purchased is held by another tenant who is entitled to preempt the sale under the next preceding section, and who
is not accepted by the purchasing tenant, the tenant in
actual occupation shall have the right to pre-empt the
sale.
·
(2) A tenant desirous of purchasing land under
sub-section ( 1 ) shall make an application in writing
to an Assistant Collector of the First Grade,
having
jurisdiction over the land concerned, and the Assistant
Collector, after giving notice to the landlord and to all
other persons interested in the land and after making
such inquiry as he thiriks fit, shall determine the value
of the land which shall be the average of the price
obtaining for similar land in the locality during 10 years
A
B
~--
c
D
E
,>- _...,.
F
'
G
H
•
..
•
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
JAIMAL v. FINANCIAL COMMR. (Sikri, J.)
213.
immediately preceding the date on which the application
is made.
( 3) The purchase price shall be three-fourth of the
va1ue of land as so determined .
( 4) (a) The tenant shall be competent to pay the
purchase price either in a lump sum or in six monthly
instalments not exceeding ten in the manner prescribed.
(b) On the purchase price or the first instahnent
thereof, as the case may be, being deposited, the tenant
shall be deemed to have become the owner of the land,
and the Assistant Collector shall, where the tenant is
not already in possession, and subject to the provisions
of the Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), put him
in possession thereof.
( c) If a default is committed in the payment of any
of the instahnents, the entire outstanding balance shall
on application by the person entitled to receive it, be
recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
( 5) If the land is subject to a mortgage at the time
of the purchase, the land shall pass to the tenant unencumbered by the mortgage but the mortgage
debt
shall be a charge on the purchase money .
( 6) If there is no such charge as aforesaid the
Assistant Collector shall, subject to any direction which
he may receive from any court, pay the purchase money
to the landowner.
( 7) If there is such a charge, the Assistant Collector shall, subject as aforesaid, apply in the discharge of
the mortgage debt so much of the purchase money as is
required for that purpose and pay the balance, if any,
to the land-owner, or retain the purchase money pending the decision of a civil Court as to the person or
persons entitled thereto."
"Land-owner" is defined in s. 2 ( 1) of the Act to mean "a,
person defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
(Act XVII of 1887) and shall include an "allottee" and "lessee".
as defined in clauses (b) and ( c) respectively, of section 2 of the
East Punjab Displaced Persons (Land Resettlement) Act, 1949·
(Act XXXVI of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the "Resettlement Act". The explanation·to s. 2(1) reads :
H
"In respect of land mortgaged with possession, the
mortgagee shall be deemed to be the land-owner."
The word "tenant" is defined in s. 2 ( 6) as follows :
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 2 S.C.R.
" "Tenant" has the meaning assigned to it in the
A
Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1887)
and
includes a sub-tenant and self-cultivating
lessee, but
shall not include a present holder, as defined in section
2 of the Resettlement Act."
In the Land Revenue Act, 1887, "land-owner" has been defined
as follows, ins. 3(2) :
B
" "land-owner" 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 an 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."
It will be noticed that before a person can apply under s. 18
·Of the Act he must be a tenant of a land-owner other than a small
land-owner.
There is no dispute that the land-owner in this case
is not a small land-owner.
The only question is whether the
appellants, who were sub-tenants, can be said to be tenants of the
land-owner within the meaning of s. 18. If we look at the definitions of the words "tenant" and "land-owner", it seems clear that
a tenant of a tenant cannot be a tenant of the land-owner, because
the definition expressly says that a land-owner does not include
a tenant.
Apart from this, the first proviso to sub-s. (1 ) of s. 18
makes it clear that a tenant who has sublet the land or a portion,
as the case may be, to any other person during the period of his
·continuous occupation is disabled from applying under s. 18 unless
·during the period of his continuous occupation the tenant was
suffering from legal disability or physical infirmity or if a woman
was a widow or was unmarried. In other words, for example, a
tenant who is a widow would be entitled to apply under s. 18 even
though she had sublet the land which she desired to purchase. No
satisfactory answer was given by the learned counsel for
the
.appellants as to what would happen if both the sub-tenant and the
widow applied to purchase.
Both sides have relied on the scheme of the Act, but it seems
to us that the scheme of the Act and the objects underlying the
Act do not assist us in determining this question.
It is well-known
that the main objects of the Act were to provide security to the
tenants, settle tenants on land declared surplus and fix a ceiling on
the total holding of land-owners and tenants. It is also well-known
that it was a measure of agrarian reform.
But these matters do
not assist us in interpreting s. 18.
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
•
•
. .r
'
'
A
-·
B
c
D
•
E
-
F
JAIMAL V. FINANCIAL COMMR. (Sikri, /.)
215
The answer must depend upon the language of s. 18, fairly
construed. If it was intended that a sub-tenant should be entitled
to purchase under s. 18, we would have expected some provision
in the Act to solve the difficulties which would arise if there was
competition between the tenant and the sub-tenant.
There was some debate before us whether a tenant who has
sublet would be treated to be in continuous occupation of the land
during the period of sub-tenancy within s. 18 ( 1) (i), but we think
that the proviso to s. 18 ( 1 ) proceeds on the basis that the tenant
is in continuous occupation even though he has sublet the land.
It will again be noticed that under sub-s. ( 4 )(b) of s. 18 on
the purchase price being deposited, the tenant becomes owner of
the land. If the contention of the appellant was correct, the subtenant would become the owner under sub-s. ( 4 )(b); but what
will happen to the rights of the tenant? No satisfactory answer
was given to this question.
Again it will further be noticed that sub-s. ( 5) of s. 18 talks
of the mortgage of the land but it does not speak of the mortgage
of the rights of a tenant.
It seems to us that the High Court was right in holding that
the legislature did not intend to confer any rights under s. 18 on
the sub-tenant. The fact that by sub-letting the tenant is also not
able to apply under s. 18 by virtue of the first proviso to sub-s. ( 1)
cannot confer rights on the sub-tenant because he must himself
be a tenant' of land-owner within s. 18 of the Act.
Mr. Chagla says that it is a very hard case for the appellants
have been in possession for over 30 years, but if it is a hard case
it is for the legislature to intervene and provide for such hard
cases.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be
no order as tc costs.
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed .
•