Shamsher Bahadur, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners Bhajan Lal and his son Het Ram in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have challenged the legality of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 5th of October, 1962. The view taken by the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order in agreement with the Commissioner of Jullundur Division is that the tenant in order to establish his right to purchase land under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has merely to prove his own continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a period of 6 years, irrespective of the change of landlords during this period.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the point, the relevant provisions of Section 18 may be reproduced: 18. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract, a tenant of a land -owner other than a small land owner - (i) who has been in continuous occupation of the land comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years, or (ii) * * * (iii) * * * shall be entitled to purchase from the landowner the lard so held by him but not included in the reserved area of the land owner * * within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act. The Petitioners are the owners of land measuring 21 bighas and 8 biswas in Khewat No. 19, and the second Respondent Shadi Ram applied to the Assistant Collector on 20th of February, 1961, under Section 18 of the Act for the purchase of this land of which he was a tenant. It seems that the Petitioners had acquired the laud by redemption on 2nd of July, 1956 it having been mortgaged by one Chaman Lal sometime before 1943. While it is not disputed that the other conditions for the purchase of land mentioned in Section 18 are satisfied, it is contended by Mr Abnasha Singh, on behalf of the Petitioners, that they have not held the land continuously as landlords for a period of six years, the land having bean redeemed on 2nd of July, 1956. The Petitioners are not small land -owners and the area which is sought to be acquired by the tenants has not been reserved by them. It is also not denied that the tenants have been in continuous occupation of the land for more than six years. The question is: Can the words "comprised in his tenancy for a minimum period of six years" be read to refer to land which has been held by a landlord for a continuous period of six years ? In my opinion, the protection is clearly intended for the benefit of a tenant who has been in continuous occupation of the lands comprised in his tenancy for a period of six years and does not protect a landlord who may have acquired the land recently and has held it for a period of less than six years. The starting point of the tenancy is not the date when the land was redeemed by its present owners but when the tenants actually got into possession. It is well to observe that the protection is afforded to the land of the tenant "comprised in his tenancy" and his rights to purchase cannot be defeated by transfer which has been made by a landlord during this period. If the contention of Mr. Abnasha Singh is to prevail a landlord would always be able to defeat the statutory right of the tenant by effecting a transfer. Section 16 of the Act makes it clear that "* * no transfer or other disposition of land effected after the 1st February, 1955, shall affect the rights of the tenant thereon under this Act." Mr. Abnasha Singh has invited my attention to the definitions of 'land -owner' in Sub -section (I) of Section 2 of the Act and especially to the explanation which provides that "in respect of land mortgaged with possession the mortgagee shall be deemed to be 'land -owner'. I do not see how the scope of the explanation in the definition of the 'land -owner* is helpful to the case of the petitioning landlords. It is further submitted by Mr. Abnasha Singh that Section 8 of the Act in which it is said that "the continuity of a tenancy shall not be affected by - (a) the death of the landlord, or (b) the death of the tenant * * and (c) any change therein under the same land -owner; * * * does not mention a case of the present kind where the mortgage has been redeemed and it is accordingly submitted that the continuance of the tenancy is affected. The section does not exhaust all the possibilities, where the continuance of a tenancy remains unaffected. Three special situations are mentioned which according to the statute will not affect the continuance of a tenancy. It does not and cannot mean that no other situation could be contemplated where the continuance of a tenancy would remain undisturbed.
(3.) NOW , under Sub -section (8) of Section 2 of the Act, it is mentioned that 'land' and all other terms used, but not defined in this Act, shall have the same meaning as are assigned to them in Punjab Tenancy Act. If reference is made to the Punjab Tenancy Act, we find that Sub -section (7) of Section 4 defines 'tenant' and 'landlord' to include the predecessors and successors -in interest of a tenant and landlord respectively. The Petitioners are, therefore, no more than successors -in -interest of the previous landlords and they do not acquire any new rights as against the tenants. The statutory requirement of occupation for a continuous period of six years is only for the tenant and cannot be extended by implication to refer to the continuous ownership for that period of a landlord. In my view, the interpretation put by the Financial Commission owner is in accord with the cannons of construction and is calculated to promote the objects of the legislation. There is no reason to interfere in writ proceedings and I would, accordingly, dismiss this petition. There would, however, be no order as to costs.;