[Punjab Security Of Land Tenures Act] Civil Court Would Retain Jurisdiction In Cases Where the Landlord-Tenant Relationship Itself Is Disputed: Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat dismissed a civil appeal, wherein it was enjoined upon to decide on the ambit of Section 25 of the Act in respect of the bar of the Civil Courts to determine validity of proceedings or order passed in accordance with the provision of the Act.

Factual Background

The Appellants along with Respondent No. 2 to 21 filed an application under the Act for eviction of the Respondent No. 1 ("tenant") for non-payment of rent, before the Assistant Collector, who allowed the same. The tenant approached the Collector, Ferozepur in appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, a revision was filed before the Commissioner, who referred it to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab to set aside the order and permit the parties to go before the Civil Court. The reference was disallowed and accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.

Thereafter, the tenant instituted a suit for declaration that the order of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector was without jurisdiction, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellants from taking possession of the property in dispute. The Trial Court decreed the suit, which upon challenge was upheld by the 1st Additional District Judge, Ferozepur and also by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal.

Findings of the Impugned Judgment

The contention raised by the appellants was that they were the owner of the suit property, which they had purchased from Mahant Ramji Das vide sale deed dated 16.11.1956. The suit property was the Mahant's personal property and thus, the application for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent by the appellants was maintainable. It was also argued that the sale deed could only be challenged by the Mandir and not the tenant.

According to the tenant, he had obtained the suit property on lease on 20.10.1955 from Mahant Ramji Dass as the Manager of the Mandir initially for a period of five years and then for a period of twenty years. He contended that since the property was passed on to the appellants by the Mahant, without any title in the property, he was not the tenant of the appellants and not liable to pay them rent. In essence, disputing the landlord-tenant relationship he challenged the maintainability of the order of the Revenue Court.

As per the High Court, the suit land was the property of the Mandir. The Mahant was only the Manager of the Mandir and he had no power to pass on the title of the property. It further held that the sale deed dated 16.11.1956 being invalid there was no landlord-tenant relationships between the appellants and the Respondent No. 1. The tenant had never recognised the appellants to be his landlords, which is evident from the fact that he had not paid them rent and therefore the protection of Section 116 of the Evidence Act was also not available to the appellants. The Court further noted that there was no force in the appellants' argument that the sale could be challenged only by the Mandir and not the tenant. It held that the revenue authority had acted illegally in deciding the title of property and passing the eviction order.

Findings of the Supreme Court

The only issue raised by the appellant before the Apex Court was the interpretation of the ambit of Section 25 of the Act, with reads as under:

"Section 25. Exclusion of courts and authorities - Except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the validity of any proceedings or order taken or made under this Act shall not be called in question in any court or before any other authority."

Section 14A of the Act, inter alia, deals with the eviction application, wherein the Assistant Collector as per Section 10(2), on the receipt of an applicant after giving to the parties notice in writing and the reasonable opportunity to be heard, determine the dispute summarily and keep a memorandum of evidence and a gist of his final order with brief reasons. Section 10(3) provides that when an application is filed under 14A, any proceeding in relation to the same matter pending in any other court or before any authority shall be stayed. Examining Sections 14A, 10(2) and 10(3) and other provisions, the Supreme Court observed that, under the said provisions the power of the Assistant Collector can be said to be exhaustive given that once the dispute is determined summarily by the Assistant Collector the proceedings stayed before the courts would lapse. In that sense, the Court noted -

"The law giver no doubt does contemplate an exclusive and expeditious remedy for the landlord to seek eviction brooking no overlapping of jurisdiction by exercise of power by any other court or authority on a parallel basis."

The exclusive power is based on the assumption made by the legislature that the landlord makes the application against a person who is indeed the tenant. The Court clarified that the rider to this exhaustive power is the contest to the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. Relying on the ratio of Magiti Sasamal v. Pandab Bissoi AIR 1962 SC 547; Raja Durga Singh of Solon v. Tholu And Ors. AIR 1963 SC 361 and Richpal Singh And Ors. v. Dalip (1987) 4 SCC 410, the Court held that when a landlord-tenant relationship is disputed, despite the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Revenue Court to order eviction of the tenant, the Civil Court would retain jurisdiction. The 'validity of the decision or the order' in Section 25 would not include a case where the Authority goes beyond its power as assigned by the legislature, to evict a tenant who disputes the landlord-tenant relationship. Thus, the illegality of the order passed by the Assistant Collector, that is affirmed in statutory appeal, review or revision can be assailed before a Civil Court. It held:

"What we find, is that, the expression "validity of the decision or the Order" in Section 25 of the Act, would not include a case where, despite a dispute projected, that there was no landlord-tenant relationship, the Authority decides the said issue in the course of the Order of Eviction, under Section 14A, after brushing aside the tenant's objection relating to his position, viz., that he is not a tenant. In such a situation, the validity is tied-up with the fundamental aspect of absence of power of the Authority to decide on the question of landlord-tenant relationship. We must clarify, therefore, that the validity of the orders under Section 14A is open to scrutiny in a Civil Court, in a situation, when the tenant denies and disputes the case of the landlord that there is a landlord-tenant relationship."

Out of an abundance of caution, it was spelled out by the Court that a frivolous plea by the tenant would not, however, dilute the validity of Section 25. In the facts of the present case, acknowledging the lack of landlord-tenant relationship, the Court found the contention of the appellants to be meritless.