- (1.) Pohiya, who has filed this civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, was a tenant of Chhabil Dass, respondent No. 1, in respect of the land described in the petition. Chhabil Dass had gifted this land to his sons Arjan Dass and Ram Kishan, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, but this has not in any way affected the tenancy rights of the petitioner in the land.
(2.) The petitioner had filed a purchase application before the Assistant Collector, respondent No. 6, under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act') against his landlords on 27.3.1963. Without going into the question whether the landlord's application for the petitioner's ejectment had been filed before or after this purchase application of the tenant, there was a time when both these cross-petitions were pending simultaneously before an Assistant Collector in the years 1964-65. In view of my decision in Smt. Dhan Kaur v. The Financial Commissioner Revenue, Haryana and others, 1970 PunLJ 370, the proceedings in these cross-petitions should have been consolidated by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respondent No. 4, and the Revenue Officers subordinate to him. The Collector, respondent No. 5, had, therefore, rightly directed in his order dated 21.7.1965 (Annexure 'B' to the writ petition) that the landlord's ejectment application should be decided alongwith the tenant's purchase application under Section 18 of the Act. It hardly seems to make any difference that at different stages, one party or the other, was trying to have these proceedings delinked or separated. My decision in Dhan Kaur's case was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court and the case is reported at page 664 of the same volume of the Punjab Law Journal. It is true that the petitioner had himself desired at one stage that these proceedings should be separated and this enabled the landlord to steal a march over the tenant by securing an order of eviction before a previously instituted purchase application of the tenant could be disposed of. This ejectment order would not, however, secure the landlord any advantage in view of a ruling of the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal v. The State of Punjab and others, 1970 PunLJ 812. It was observed by the Hon'ble Judges as follows :- "Where the landowner initiated proceedings for the ejectment of the tenant, but before the order of ejectment was passed by the Assistant Collector, the tenant exercised his right to purchase the land, held, the tenant's right to purchase would not be defeated merely because on a date subsequent thereto an order in ejectment was passed against him. The tenant had at the date when he initiated proceedings under Section 18, right to purchase the land. By the subsequent order in ejectment made against the tenant, the statutory right of the tenant was not prejudicially affected." xxx xxx xxx xxx The expression 'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract with which Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act commences does not whittle down the right of the tenant at the date when he makes a claim to purchase the land merely because the tenancy is liable to be terminated in a proceeding then pending for an order in ejectment under Section 14-A at the instance of the landowner. Under the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely because a proceeding in ejectment is instituted. The tenancy is determined only in the conditions prescribed by Section 9 and in the manner provided by Section 14-A. So long as the Assistant Collector has not passed the order ejecting the tenant, the right of the tenant is not extinguished, he continues to remain a tenant, and being a tenant he is entitled to exercise his right to purchase the land."
(3.) I, therefore, partly allow this civil writ petition and direct that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 shall proceed to hear the petitioner's purchase application under Section 18 of the Act and that the final decision shall remain unaffected by the order of eviction secured by the landlord or by the fact that the petitioner has already been dispossessed in execution of that order. Parties shall bear their own costs in this Court. Petition partly allowed.;