Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an agricultural tenancy governed by the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The appellant tenant had obtained on lease 208 canals of agricultural land from the fourth respondent landlord for five years from Rabi 1951 to Kharif 1955 at an annual rent of Rs.7,500 under a registered lease deed executed on November 20, 1950. The lease was to commence when the landlord put a tube well into working order, which occurred on July 11, 1951. The tenant paid Rs.7,500 as advance rent for one year but then failed to pay rent for subsequent years. For the year 1951, the landlord filed a suit on August 15, 1952, which was decreed on March 23, 1957 for Rs.859-4-0 after applying the maximum rent provisions of Section 12 of the Act; the tenant paid that amount. For the years 1952, 1953, and 1954, the landlord filed another suit on January 5, 1955 for Rs.22,500 and also a revised application under Section 14A(ii) on October 8, 1956 for recovery of arrears. The tenant deposited Rs.7,000 on January 22, 1957 and later the balance of Rs.13,378-2-0 on June 21, 1957. The tenant also did not pay rent for 1955 or for Rabi 1956 despite holding over after the lease expired. On October 10, 1956, the landlord filed an eviction application under Section 14A(1) alleging failure to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause under Section 9(1)(ii). The Assistant Collector First Grade dismissed the eviction application on December 24, 1958, but the Collector, Jullundur District reversed that order on May 20, 1959 and directed eviction. The Commissioner and Financial Commissioner upheld the eviction, and the Punjab High Court dismissed the tenant's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 on March 9, 1961. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The tenant argued that Section 9(1)(ii) applied prospectively only and that conduct prior to the insertion of Section 14A in 1955 could not be considered; he also contended that since he paid the arrears within the time fixed under Section 14A(ii), he could not be evicted under Section 14A(1). The Supreme Court rejected both contentions. It held that a statute is not applied retrospectively merely because part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a moment prior to its passing; past conduct relevant to Section 9(1)(ii) could be considered even if it occurred before Section 14A came into force. The Court also held that clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 14A are entirely different and not inconsistent: clause (ii) deals with eviction as punishment for non-compliance with an order to deposit arrears, while clause (i) deals with eviction for any of the grounds in Section 9(1), including failure to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause. On the facts, the tenant's repeated failure to pay rent and his false excuses showed patent irregularity and absence of sufficient cause. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Landlord and Tenant - Eviction - Non-payment of rent regularly without sufficient cause - The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, ss.9(1)(ii),14A(1) - Tenant failed to pay rent for successive years, leading to repeated recovery suits; excuses of defective tube well and inability to compute rent under s.12 were disbelieved; court found irregularity patent and no sufficient cause. Held that eviction could be ordered under s.14A(1) because the tenant's failure to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause satisfied s.9(1)(ii). B) Landlord and Tenant - Retrospective operation - Past conduct - The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, s.9(1)(ii), s.14A - Tenant contended that s.9(1)(ii) applies prospectively only and conduct prior to insertion of s.14A in 1955 could not be considered; court rejected this, holding that a statute is not applied retrospectively merely because part of the requisites for its action is drawn from a moment prior to its passing, and past conduct relevant to the clause could not be overlooked. Held that tribunals rightly considered conduct prior to s.14A. C) Statutory Interpretation - Distinction between clauses of s.14A - The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, s.14A(1), s.14A(ii) - Tenant argued that payment of arrears within time fixed under cl.(ii) precluded eviction under cl.(i); court held clauses are entirely different and not inconsistent; cl.(ii) deals with eviction as punishment for non-compliance with order to deposit arrears, while cl.(i) deals with eviction for grounds in s.9. Held that payment under cl.(ii) does not bar eviction under cl.(i).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 9(1)(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 applies prospectively only so that tenant's conduct prior to the enactment of Section 14A cannot be considered; and whether a tenant who paid arrears of rent within the time fixed under Section 14A(ii) can still be evicted under Section 14A(1) for failure to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction order. It held that the tenant's case was covered by Section 14A(1) read with Section 9(1)(ii) because irregularity in payment of rent was patent and there was no sufficient cause, and past conduct prior to Section 14A could be considered.
Law Points
- A statute is not applied retrospectively merely because a part of requisites for its action is drawn from a moment prior to its passing
- past conduct relevant to Section 9(1)(ii) may be considered even if occurring before Section 14A came into force
- clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 14A are distinct and not inconsistent
- payment of arrears under Section 14A(ii) does not bar eviction under Section 14A(1)
- failure to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause under Section 9(1)(ii) justifies eviction.
