M.R.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 2, 1973, rendered by the learned District Judge, Kamal. The brief facts giving r ise to this controversy may be stated as under.
(2.) ISHAR Singh appellant was a tenant of Virsa Singh respondent in respect of 40 Kanals and 4 Marias of land. This fact is borne from the entries in the Khasra girdawaris for the years 1955-59. Some time in 1959-60 Virsa Singh mortgaged this land with the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,200.00 and the mutation evidencing this mortgage was sanctioned on January 20, 1960. On July 2, 1964, Virsa Singh agreed to sell this land to Ishar Singh appellant for Rs. 5,500.00 and the agreement was reduced into writing. On the following day, i. e. July 3, 1964, Virsa Singh entered into another agreement with respondent Bodhi to sell this very land in his favour for a sum of Rs. 6,000/ -. On January 13, 1965, Virsa Singh executed the sale deed in favour of Shri Bodhi. The latter applied for redemption of the land which was allowed by the Collector by his order dated May 31, 1965, Exhibit D-8. On January 31, 1966, only symbolical possession was given to Bodhi and it was held by the Collector that the appellant will continue to remain in possession of the land as a tenant. The appellant had filed a suit for specific performance against Virsa Singh and Bodhi claiming a right to purchase the land in dispute for a sum of Rs. 5,500.00 only on the ground that Virsa Singh had entered into an agreement with the appellant to sell this land to him on an earlier date. This suit was decreed on May 10, 1966. In execution of the decree, Virsa Singh and Bodhi executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant on November 22, 1966. On November 20, 1967, Maluk Singh son of Virsa Singh filed a suit for possession against the appellant on the ground that he being the son of the vendor had a superior right of pre-emption. This suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on December 14, 1970. An appeal was taken to the learned District Judge, Karnal, before whom reliance was placed on Gurdial Singh v. Sewa Singh, 1972 Pun LJ 395 = (AIR 1973 Punj 254 ). In that case it was held that when a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale is decreed, the sale dates back to the date on which the agreement to sell is entered into between the parties and since on that date the appellant was a mortgagee of the property he could not be regarded as a tenant thereof.
(3.) IN this appeal, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that Gurdial Singh's case (AIR 1973 Punj 254) (supra) relied upon by the learned District Judge has been reversed in Letters Patent Appeal and even otherwise a tenant who acquired mortgagee rights in agricultural land in the then State of Punjab did not lose his status as a tenant. In support of the last mentioned contention reliance has been placed on Section 17-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), which reads as under :-" 17-B. Certain mortgagees to be deemed as tenants under the Act, (1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, land comprising the tenancy of a tenant is mortgaged to him with possession by the land-owner and such land is subsequently redeemed by the land-owner, the tenant shall, notwithstanding such redemption or any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to be the tenant of the land-owner in respect of such land on the same terms and conditions on which it was held by him immediately before the execution of the mortgage as if the mortgage had never been executed (2) Where a tenant referred to in Sub-section (1) has been dispossessed by the land-owner in execution of a decree or order of redemption, he shall be entitled to be restored to his tenancy in the prescribed manner on the same terms and conditions on which it was held by him immediately before the execution of the mortgage on an application made by him to an Assistant Collector of the first grade having jurisdiction within a period of one year from the commencement of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures (Amendment Ordinance) 1958. (3) An application received under Sub-section (2) shall be disposed of by the Assistant Collector of the first grade in the manner laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 10. ";