K. Kannan J. - (1.) I. The Subiect of lis in writ petitions
(2.) ALL the writ petitions are at the instance of the State of Punjab against persons or their representatives who were erstwhile lessees to whom properties had been offered on lease for a specified period through the Manager, Government Seed Farm. Shorn of details relating to the respective properties that had been granted to each one of the private respondents in the three writ petitions, properties had been granted on lease for agriculture purpose on a stipulation that the lessee shall pay l/3rd share of the produce. In C.W.P. No. 12256 of 1989, the lease was executed in favour of Sh. Balbir Singh on 30.01.1968 for a period of one year. In C.W.P. No. 12257 of 1989, the lease had been in favour of Sh. Ujagar Singh through a lease deed dated 1.5.1973 again for a period of one year. The original tenant had died on 25.7.1987 and his legal heirs namely respondent Nos. 3 to 11 had given the possession of the land leased to the original lessee. In C.W.P. No. 12258 of 1989, the lease had been in favour of Sh. Teja Singh by lease deed dated 15.3.1964 and after the death of Teja Singh, his legal heirs namely the widow and some came into possession of the property. II. Raison d'tre for dismissal by authorities below In respect of these lease transactions, the petitioner had filed applications under Section 5 of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Public Premises Act") before the Collector, Muktsar for recovery of possession on the ground that their respective possession had become unauthorized after the termination of the lease period. The applications were dismissed on 30.11.1982 holding that the tenants were not unauthorized but they had been paying rent subsequent to the lease period and therefore, they could not be evicted. These orders of the Collector had been the subject of appeal before Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, who dismissed the appeal again affirming that the receipt of rent from the tenants of 1 /3rd produce showed the continuance of lease and character of possession of property as not unauthorized. Even when the appeal was pending before the Commissioner, a fresh notice was issued by the land owner on 17.04.1983 demanding eviction and expressing the intention to resume land for personal cultivation from Kharif 1983. Since the appeals to the Commissioner were dismissed, the Government approached the Collector again for ejectment in the year 1987. The petitions were dismissed holding that after the dismissal of appeals by the commissioner, some other action must have been taken than petitions for eviction under PP Act. The appeals were dismissed subsequently holding that a 2nd petition was barred by res judicata. The orders passed by the Commissioner are the subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions. III. Principle of res judicata wrongly applied On the first issue of the maintainability of fresh petitions for ejectment, I have no doubt in my mind that the bar of res judicata was clearly wrongly applied. The application for ejectment was previously dismissed on the ground that the tenants were not in unauthorized and the payment of leases showed that there had been a continuation of lease and that they were tenants holding over. A subsequent eviction petition, when he rents were not any longer received could not be said to be barred. Even receipt of rents after the determination of the period originally stipulated in the agreements of lease without execution of fresh documents of lease would only show that they were tenants from year to year in respect of agricultural lands and therefore, an ejectment action beyond the period of one year when they did not collect the rent, could not have been termed as pursuit of eviction proceedings on the same cause of action. The principle of res judicata has no application when a fresh action for eviction is taken after notice. The action for eviction declaring the land owner's intention to assume direct cultivation through notices dated 17.04.1983 spelt out distinct causes of action and not affected by res judicata. IV. Petition under PP Act for eviction constitutes lawful procedure
(3.) THE Collector's dismissal of the petition that some other action must have taken is equally meaningless. The action of public authority to seek eviction against its erstwhile lessee after the completion of the notice period was perfectly competent. It must be remembered that by virtue of Section 117 of Transfer of Property Act, the provision relating to eviction contained in the Act are not applicable to tenancies for agricultural purposes. The principles laid down under the said Act, however, are applicable (See Ranga Iyengar v. Sivaswami Pandaram, :1978(1) R.CR.(Rent) 562 : AIR 1977 Mad 364). A continuance in possession after the expiry of lease by efflux of time puts the possession of lessee as at sufferance, liable for ejectment in accordance with law. The petition under PP Act is in accordance with law and hence tenable. V. Competence of petitions for eviction under Section 5 of Public Premises Act and the finality of orders passed under the PP Act remain the only issues for adjudication;