Rekha Mittal, J.:— By way of this order, I shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 8026 and 8027 of 1999 as these involve common question of law and facts.
2. The respondents, namely, Shivraj Singh, Shivtar Singh and Gurbans Singh sons of Hakam Singh, resident of Bajpur, District Ferozepur filed an application in Form ‘L’ of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, for ejectment of the petitioner from the land in dispute, on the ground that the petitioner is the sub-lessee under Kashmiri Lal-tenant and he failed to pay the rent. The application of the respondents was allowed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Abohar, vide order dated 22.04.1994 (Annexure P1). The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Ferozepur, vide order dated 31.10.1994 (Annexure P2). The petitioner filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, vide order dated 30.09.1997 (Annexure P3). The petitioner filed another revision petition which also met the same fate, vide order dated 28.08.1998 (Annexure P4), passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. Feeling dissatisfied with the orders passed by the revenue authorities, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for giving challenge to the order of his ejectment as well as holding him liable to pay penalty. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was never inducted as a tenant by Kashmiri Lal. It is argued that Kashmiri Lal was impleaded as respondent in the application for eviction, but was not examined to corroborate the version of the respondents (petitioners before the revenue authorities). It is further argued that report No. 72 (Annexure R/2.A) was got entered in rozmancha at the back of the petitioner, which was never got certified from him. It is further contended that Kashmiri Lal was a man of the respondents and had acted at their instance to get a false report entered in respect of creation of sublease in favour of the petitioner @ Rs. 850/- per year per Killa as chakota. It is submitted that the petitioner purchased land, measuring 26 kanals 5 marlas i.e 1059/7974 share out of total land, measuring 177 kanals 13 marlas from co-owners of the joint khewat, namely, Om Parkash and others, vide registered sale deed dated 01.06.1987 (Annexure P5), therefore, the petitioner became a co-sharer in the joint khewat, in which, contesting respondents are also co-owners and thus could not be evicted from the land, co-owned by him.
3. Counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted that the petitioner was a sub-lessee of half share of land, measuring 40 kanals 5 marlas under Kashmiri Lal son of Karam Chand, who was a tenant of the respondents. It is argued that in view of creation of sub lease in favour of the petitioner, a report was prepared in the year 1987–88, which was entered in roznamcha wakiati (Annexure R/2.A). He has further submitted that in the year 1989, the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge at Fazilka, wherein, he has admitted himself to be a tenant in the suit land under Kashmiri Lal. The next submission made by counsel is that the petitioner did not prove sale deed dated 01.06.1987 before the revenue authorities and the said sale deed is a bogus and sham transaction. He has further argued that the petitioner is guilty of concealing the material fact in respect of institution of civil suit which disentitles him to seek any relief from the Court of equity.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and paper book.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking relief of injunction, restraining the defendants, namely, Shivraj Singh, Shivtar Singh and Gurbans Singh sons of Hakam Singh and Balbir Kaur widow of Hakam Singh, from interfering in his peaceful possession or ejecting him without due course of law from suit land. A copy of the plaint of that suit is Annexure R/1. In para No. 1 of the plaint, there is an admission by the petitioner that he is a tenant under Kashmiri Lal. Para No. 1 of the plaint reads as follows:—
“1. That the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of land comprised in Rect. No. 160, Killa No. 10/1 (1-16), 11/2 (1-16), 12(8-0), 9(8-0), 2/2(2-18), 19/1 (2-16), 19/2(5-4), situated within the revenue estate of village Dodewala, Tehsil Abohar from the year 1987 as tenant under Kashmiri Lal. The possession of the plaintiff over the land in question is in existence at the spot, which is evident form the record of khasra girdawri and the same is attached herewith.”
6. There is also no denial that the aforesaid suit for injunction was decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 07.09.1990, passed by the Court of Sub Judge at Fazilka. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has ever withdrawn the said admission. The averments of the petitioner in the civil suit corroborates the correctness of report No. 72 recorded in roznamcha wakiati for the year 1987–88 (Annexure R/2.A). In this view of the matter, I find it difficult to accept the plea of the petitioner that he was never inducted as a tenant under Kashmiri Lal.
7. Another plea pressed into service is that he has become a co-sharer in the joint land on the basis of purchase of land measuring 26 kanals 5 marlas out of 171 kanals 13 marlas joint holding, vide registered sale deed dated 01.06.1987 (Annexure P5), therefore, he is no longer a tenant in the land because every co-sharer is deemed to be an owner of every inch of joint land. A perusal of orders passed by the revenue authorities would reveal that the petitioner had raised a plea that he has become a co-sharer in the joint land. However, it appears that the sale deed propounded by the petitioner has not been proved before the revenue authorities. The plea of the respondents that the sale deed is a bogus and sham transaction, being a question of fact, cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. Now, assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner has purchased a part of land out of joint khatta, the crucial question for adjudication is ‘whether the petitioner ceases to be a tenant’ or his status as a tenant merged into that of a landlord?
8. This issue came up for consideration before the Courts on a number of occasions and the controversy has been set at rest by holding consistently that a tenant who purchases a part of property, does not loose his status as a tenant and the tenancy is not extinguished, unless, he purchases the entire rights of the landlord in whole of premises. In this context, reference can be made to the judgments ‘India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagadandi Agarwala (dead) by Lrs. Smt. Savitri Agarwalla’, 2004 (1) R.C.R (Civil) 686 : (2004) 3 SCC 178 : AIR 2004 SC 1321, ‘Parmod Kumar Jaiswal v. Bibi Husn Bono’, 2005 (2) R.C.R (Civil) 629 : (2005) 5 SCC 492 : AIR 2005 AIR SC 2857, ‘Jaswant Singh v. Gurdarshan Singh Bedi’, 1985 (1) R.C.R (Rent) 60 : 1985 (2) PLR 284 (Punjab and Haryana High Court), ‘Inderjit Kaur v. Baij Nath’ 2003 (2) RCR (Rent) 242 (Punjab and Haryana High Court), ‘Mohinder Singh v. Som Nath’, 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 139. In all these judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, discussed the doctrine of merger i.e Section 111(d) of Transfer of Property Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parmod Kumar Jaiswal's case (supra), after discussing the various judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and different High Courts, has held as under:—
“34. A plain and grammatical interpretation of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act leaves no room for doubt that unless the interests of the lessee and that of the lessor in the whole of the property leased, become vested at the same time in one person in the same right, a determination of the lease cannot take place. On taking an assignment from some of the co-owner landlords, the interests of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property do not become vested at the same time in one person in the same right. Therefore, a lessee who has taken assignment of the rights of a coowner lessor, cannot successfully raise the plea of determination of tenancy on the ground of merger of his lessee's estate in that of the estate of the landlord.”
9. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that either he has lost his status as a tenant or his status as a tenant has merged into the status of a co-owner, therefore, he neither could be evicted from the land in dispute nor an order in respect of recovery of arrears of rent could be passed against him. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error, much less illegality or violation of any statutory provision by the revenue authorities, in passing the impugned orders. For the reasons recorded herein above, the petitions are dismissed. The orders passed by the revenue authorities, impugned in the petitions, are hereby affirmed. No order as to costs.
10. Petition dismissed.
Comments