- (1.) The brief facts, which are necessary for the decision of this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, accepting the appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below, are as under :- On 24th February, 1955, Nahar Singh appellant purchased the land in dispute from one Sharif Hussan. At that time Mohan Lal respondent was in occupation of the land as a tenant under the vendor. He continued in occupation of that even after the sale. Nahar Singh appellant filed an application against Mohan Lal respondent before the village Panchayat for the recovery of the arrears of rent, which it was alleged, had not been paid. On 16th June, 1955, a compromise was entered into between the contesting parties, the terms of which were incorporated in a resolution, copy Exhibit P. 1, passed by the Panchayat on the same day, according to which the tenant voluntarily relinquished possession of the land in favour of Nahar Singh appellant, the landlord, and in return the landlord gave up his claim to all the arrears. On 21st June, 1955, however, the tenant, Mohan Lal, filed an application, copy Exhibit D. 11, under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla, praying that the possession of the land in dispute be restored to him because he had been forcibly dispossessed. This application was dismissed on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had not been invested with the powers of a Collector. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, however, also remarked that the application was not maintainable till the compromise, Exhibit P. 1, was got set aside by a competent Court. Later, after the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had been invested with the powers of a Collector, the tenant, Mohan Lal, presented another application on 19th January, 1960, copy Exhibit D. 12, repeating the allegation that he had made in his earlier application. This was resisted by the landlord, Nahar Singh, but ultimately on 12th May, 1962, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate came to the conclusion that the tenant had not entered into the compromise voluntarily and that he had been forcibly dispossessed by the landlord and, consequently, he directed that the landlord be ejected from the land. The possession of the land in dispute was actually obtained by the tenant- on 25th May, 1962. Having failed in appeal filed by him before the Commissioner and a revision filed by him before the Financial Commissioner, the landlord filed a writ petition in this Court, but the same was dismissed in limine on 24th October, 1962, (copy Exhibit D. 9). Thereafter the landlord filed the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen. The suit was resisted and on the pleadings of the parties the following four issues were settled :- 1. Whether the suit is within time ? 2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit ? 3. Whether the defendant voluntarily surrendered possession to the plaintiff on 16-61955 ? If so, its effect ? 4. Whether the order of the Collector dated 12-5-62 is void, ineffective and without jurisdiction ? The trial Court found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. These findings were affirmed by the lower appellate Court on an appeal being taken by the tenant, who then came to this Court in a regular second appeal. The findings on issue No. 2 were only challenged on two grounds, first, that in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question, whether the compromise Exhibit P. 1, w as entered into voluntarily or otherwise and that the finding of the Collector, while deciding the application under Section 43 of the Act, that the possession of the landlord was unlawful because the compromise was entered into under duress and the dispossession of the tenant was forcible, was final and could not be gone into by a Civil Court and, secondly, that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition filed by Nahar Singh landlord in this Court, the Civil Court could not go into the matter raised therein. The contention with regard to the second point was repelled and that matter is no longer urged before us. On the first point it was held that it was open to the Collector while dealing with an application under Section 43 of the Act to go into the disputed question, whether the dispossession of the tenant was illegal, or, in other words, whether the compromise Exhibit P.1 was entered into by the tenant voluntarily or under duress, arid if, after going into this matter the Collector comes to a finding, that in fact the compromise had been arrived at under duress and the possession of the landlord, which he had obtained under that comprise, was unlawful, then by virtue of Section 47 of the Act jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in respect of that matter. In view of this finding, the appeal filed by the tenant was accepted by the learned Single Judge and the suit of the landlord was dismissed. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal by the landlord.
(2.) The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, was enacted to replace the President's Act of the same name (Act 8 of 1953). The statement of objects and reasons of the Act of 1955, as published in the Pepsu Government Gazette of 22nd February, 1955, may be reproduced, to the extent as they are relevant, as follows :- "Relationship between the landlords and tenants in PEPSU being strained resulted in an extremely explosive situation. Legislation to amend and consolidate the existing laws in the State relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of land reform on the lines under-taken by the adjoining State of Punjab was not only necessary but also urgent ... ... ... ... ..." It is then stated that President's Act No. 8 of 1953 was enacted and the Act of 1955 was to replace the same. The preamble of the Act also points to the same thing. According to this it was an Act to amend and consolidate the law, relating to tenancies of agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of land reforms.
(3.) Under the law, as it originally existed prior to the President's Act No. 8 of 1953, it was not necessary for the landlord to give any reasons for ejectment of a tenant. All that was required was that notices of ejectment be issued under sections 42, 43 and 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, without specifying any reason for ejectment. The tenant had the right to file a suit within two months to contest such a notice. If he did not so contest within two months, he was liable to ejectment on an application to the Revenue Officer concerned under Section 45 and the tenancy terminated with effect from the end of the following Rabi harvest. Section 7 of the Act of 1955 provided that no tenancy could be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of this Act and except on any of the grounds mentioned therein. Section 7-A of this very Act provided certain additional grounds which gave a right to a small landholder to eject a tenant or to a big landholder to eject a tenant from the reserved area required by him for personal cultivation. Thus security of tenure was assured inter alia by limiting the right of a landholder to eject his tenant for one or more of the grounds given in sections 7 and 7A and no other.;