Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from two sales of agricultural land made in December 1966 by Labhu Ram, the owner, in favour of Bhagwan Das and others. Chet Ram was a tenant-at-will of the lands sold. Bhagwan Das and others filed a suit for ejectment against Chet Ram in the revenue court under Section 14A(i) read with Section 9(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and obtained a decree on July 31, 1967. Pursuant to that decree, Bhagwan Das and others took possession on August 31, 1968, evicting Chet Ram. After eviction, Chet Ram filed a suit for possession by pre-emption under Section 15(1)(a) Fourthly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, claiming that he was a tenant under the vendor on the date of sale and that this was sufficient. It was admitted that Chet Ram was a tenant before July 31, 1967, but before filing the pre-emption suit his tenancy had been determined and he had been dispossessed. The trial court dismissed the suit; the first appellate court decreed it relying on High Court decisions; the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld that decree in second appeal. The sole legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a person who has ceased to hold the land sold as a tenant can succeed in a pre-emption suit under Section 15(1)(a) Fourthly. The appellant contended that a pre-emptor must maintain his qualification to pre-empt up to the date of the decree, while the respondent argued that the statutory language only required tenancy on the date of sale. The Supreme Court examined the well-settled principle that a pre-emptor must maintain his qualification to pre-empt up to the date of the decree, as established by Privy Council and Lahore High Court decisions, and approved the Full Bench decision in Ramji Lal v. State of Punjab. It also noted that the statutory right of pre-emption attaches to the land and is not a mere personal right, and that a co-sharer must likewise maintain the right until decree, so there was no intelligible ground for treating a tenant differently. The Court held that if a tenant's tenancy has been determined by a decree for eviction and he has been dispossessed, he no longer satisfies the requirement of holding the land under tenancy; therefore, he cannot maintain a pre-emption suit. The Court overruled Kashmiri Lal v. Chuhar Ram and Sohan Singh v. Udho Ram to the extent they held otherwise. The appeal was allowed, the respondent's suit was dismissed, and parties were left to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Pre-emption - Tenant's Qualification to Pre-empt - Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, Section 15(1)(a) Fourthly - A tenant claiming pre-emption must hold the land under tenancy of the vendor not only on the date of sale but also at the institution of the suit and until the decree for possession by pre-emption is passed; a tenant whose tenancy has been determined and who has been dispossessed cannot maintain the suit. The Court relied on the well-settled principle that a pre-emptor must maintain his qualification to pre-empt up to the date of decree, and held that the legislature could not have intended to confer an indefeasible right on a dispossessed tenant. Held that the appeal is allowed and the respondent's suit dismissed. (Paras 641-643) B) Property Law - Pre-emption - Nature of Statutory Right - Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, Section 15 - The statutory right of pre-emption attaches to the land and is not a mere personal right; therefore, a tenant's right is no better than that of a co-sharer, who must likewise maintain qualification until decree. The Court reasoned that if a co-sharer must retain the right up to decree, there is no intelligible ground for treating a tenant differently. Held that the tenant must show his right at all material times. (Paras 643-644)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person who has ceased to hold the land sold as a tenant can succeed in a suit for possession by pre-emption under Section 15(1)(a) Fourthly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed; the suit of the respondent was dismissed; parties were left to bear their own costs in the Supreme Court.
Law Points
- A pre-emptor must maintain qualification to pre-empt up to date of decree
- statutory right of pre-emption attaches to land
- not mere personal right
- tenant must hold land as tenant at all material times
- sale alone does not divest tenant of right to hold land
- tenancy determined by decree for eviction loses status of tenant.
