- (1.) THE main question arising in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of a learned Single Judge, dated 20th of November, 1970, in civil Writ 1354 of 1969, is whether a tenant is entitled to an order for purchase of land in his continuous occupation for a minimum period of 6 years under Section 18 (1) (i) of the Punjab Security Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), if he makes the requisite application before an order for ejectment is made, but while proceedings for his ejectment are pending. Relying upon Bench decisions of this Court in Giani v. Financial Commr. , Punjab, 1969 Punj LJ 226, and dhan Kaur v. The Financial Commr. , 1970 Punj LJ 664, the learned Single Judge upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner, by which the appellant's application for purchase had been dismissed in view of the fact that an order for the appellant's eviction had been passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade as far back as 31st March, 1967, and had become final, having not been assailed before any superior authority.
(2.) THE learned Judge against whose judgment the present appeal has been preferred was party to Giani's case, 1969 Punj LJ 226. delivering the judgment of the Bench, his Lordships observed as follows:-- ". . . . . . . . . . . . . if at any time after he institution of the application under section 18 (1) (i) and before making the payment or deposit of the price or its first installment under its sub-section (4) (b) read with Rule 23, the tenant ceases to be a tenant by reason of an order of ejectment having been passed against him by a competent authority, or by operation of law or of his own violation, he loses his right to purchase the land which was comprised in his erstwhile tenancy. " Reviewing earlier decisions, including Har Sarup v. Financial Commr. , 1965 Punj LJ 178, Sarkaria J. , observed as follows:- "as observed already, in all the four cases, namely, Har Sarup's case, 1965 Punj LJ 178; Umrao's case, 1967 Punj LJ 249; Malik Lal Labhu masih's case, 1966 Punj LJ 248= (AIR 1967 Punj 449) and Amin Lal's case, 1967 Punj LJ 296, the learned Judges, either expressly or by implication, accepted the proposition that only a tenant whose status is subsisting at the date of the application under Section 18 (1) (i) of the Act is entitled to purchase if he has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years. In none of these cases it has been held that the word 'tenant' in Section 18 (1) (i) is to be assigned a meaning different from or wider than that given in the definition of that term in Section 4 (5) of the Punjab Tenancy act and that is what flows from the plain language of Section 18. Once it is held that the status as 'tenant' is a pre-requisite of the applicant's right to purchase, there seems to be no escape from the conclusion that he must retain that qualification at the time of the actual purchase or acquisition of ownership rights by depositing the price or its installment under sub-section (4) (b) of section 18. Prior to that stage, the proceedings may be called pre-purchase proceedings of an exploratory or preliminary character. . . . . . . . It is early after the determination of the aforesaid preliminaries, viz. , eligibility under sub-section (1) and price under sub-sections (2) and (3), that the tenant actually exercises his right of purchase by depositing or paying the price or its first installment under sub-section (4) within the period prescribed by Rule 23 (3) of the punjab Security of Land Tenures rules, 1956. xx xx xx" "with utmost respect, therefore, I think that it is not correct to say that it is not necessary for the tenant-applicant under Section 18 (1) (i) to retain its qualification as a tenant after the making of an application under Section 18 (1) (i ). This view is founded on the fallacy that the mere fact of making an application under Section 18 (1) (i) by the tenant in continuous occupation for a minimum period of six years, immediately confers on him a vested right as purchaser of the land. Such an assumption, which is the basis of this view, is opposed to the express provisions of sub-section (4) (b) of Section 18, which are to the effect, that the tenant becomes the owner only on the deposit of the price or its installment. It is further respectfully submitted that the said view might lead to anomalous and startling results. "
(3.) AN attempt was made before the learned Single Judge to assail correctness of this decision by relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Saheb Ram v. Financial Commr. , Punjab, 1970 Punj LJ 282= (AIR 1971 SC 198 ). The learned single Judge, however, distinguished that authority and held that the rule laid down in Giani's case (supra) by the Division Bench had to be followed.;