SHYAM LALversusDEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

                       [2015) 2 S.C.R. 930


A                          SHYAM LAL

                                 v.
       DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS
B                (Civil Appeal No. 4245 of 2012)

                      FEBRUARY 27, 2015.

          [M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
c      Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy- Whether tenant
  of agricultural holding becomes a trespasser after the expiry
  of period of tenancy or continues to be a tenant having
  protection from eviction under the tenancy Jaws - Held: A
D tenant of agricultural holding does not become a trespasser
  after the expiry of period of tenancy - However, in view of
  law laid down in* Sukhdev Singh's case that after expiry of
  fixed term tenancy of agricultural land, the tenant no longer
  continues to be tenant, the matter is referred to larger Bench
E for laying down the correct law on the question - Punjab
  Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - ss. 9, 14, 14A and 18
  - Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

      Words and Phrases - 'Tenant' - Meaning of, in the
F context of Agricultural Tenancy.

          Referring the matter to Larger Bench, the Court

       HELD 1.1 In view of the provisions of Sections 9,
  14, 14A and 18 together of Punjab Security of Land
G Tenure Act, 1953 a tenant of an agricultural land is
  liable to be evicted only in the manner provided under
  the Act notwithstanding any contract on the basis of
  which tenant occupied possession of the land for the

H                              930
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                  931
                  GARIB DASS

purpose of cultivation. Action for eviction of a tenant A
can be taken before a Revenue Authority to whom
power and jurisdiction has been conferred by the said
Act. [Para 19] (944-H; 945-A-B]

      1.2 In view of various tenancy laws applicable in      B
the State of Punjab and the law discussed by this Court
and the High Court, the trial court, the appellate court
and the High Court have committed error of law in
holding that a tenant of agricultural holding becomes
a trespasser after the expiry of period of tenancy. The      C
High Court and the lower courts have failed to consider
that the agricultural tenancy is governed by the State
Tenancy Laws which are special Acts for the purpose
of regulating the tenancy and protecting the tenants
from eviction without following the procedure provided       D
in those State Laws. The procedure for eviction of
tenant in occupation of building by approaching the
civil court under Rent Control Act will not.be applicable
for evicting the tenants holding agricultural land. It is
the Revenue Court specially empowered to take action         E
for eviction of tenant in the manner provided under the
Act notwithstanding any contract on the basis of which
the tenant occupied possession of the agricultural land
for the purpose of cultivation. [Para 32] (953-C-G]
                                                             F
     2. However in* Sukhdev Singh's case, a Bench of
this Court on consideration of the provisions of Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was of the opinion
that after the expiry of fixed term tenancy in respect of
agricultural land, the tenancy gets terminated by efflux G
of time and person occupying the lease premises no
longer remains tenant. The Court is not in agreement
with the view taken by this Court in* Sukhdev Singh's
case. Therefore to maintain judicial discipline, the H
932        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A     matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench for laying
      down a correct law. [Paras 33 and 34) [953-H; 954-A-B]

         Sukhdev Singh (D) thr. Lrs. & ors. vs. Puran & Ors.
      2015 (3) SCALE 144 - held inapplicable
B
          V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodai Ammal 1980 (1) SCR
      334: (1979) 4 sec 214; R.   v. Bhupal Prasad VS. State of
      AP. & Ors. 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 658: (1995) 5 sec 698;
      Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 34;
c     Sanwat Singh vs. Zail Singh 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 275:
      (1997) 9 SCC 468; Tulsi vs. Paro 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 535:
      (1997) 2 SCC 706; Ram Lal vs. Darshan Lal and Ors.
      (2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427; Mandir Jhoke Hari Har & Ors.
      vs. Ajit Kaur & Ors. 1977 PLJ 315; Rameshwar vs. Sheo
o     Chand & Ors. 1981 PLJ 362 - referred to.

                          Case Law Reference

       (1971) 1 sec 34            referred to.       Para 28

E      1980 (1) SCR 334           referred to.       Para 25

       (2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427 referred to.         Para 31

       1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 658 referred to.          Para 26

       1977 PLJ 315               referred to.       Para 8
F
       1981 PLJ 362               referred to.       Para 8

       2015 (3) SCALE 144         held inapplicable. Para 27

       1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 275 referred to.         Para 29
G
       1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 535 referred to.          Para 30

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:· Civil Appeal No.
      4245 of 2012.
H         From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2010 of the
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                       933
                  GARIB DASS

High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R. S. A.          A
No, 3785 of 2009.

    · Pravin H. Parekh, Shashank Kumar, Shashank
Bhansali, Anurag Tripathi, Ajay Awasthi (for Parekh & Co.),
for the Appellant.                                                B

   Manoj Swarup, Ankit Swarup, Tanya Swarup, Rohit
Kumar Singh for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                  c
     M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is
directed against the judgment dated 28.6.2010 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the second appeal
filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed with costs
throughout.                                               D

      2. The litigation between the parties commenced on the
filing of the suit by the plaintiff-appellant for permanent
injunction against the respondent-defendant claiming to
have been in possession of the suit property for 27-28 years E
as Gair Marusi and alleging that the respondent was
threatening to dispossess him. The plaintiff claimed himself
to be in possession over the agricultural land measuring 122
kanals 2 marlas situated in village Chhainsa, Tehsil
Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad having tube-well, electricity F
connection and his house in Killa No.26 in which he is
allegedly residing for the last 27-28 years continuously and
also having another Engine Tubewell Bore in killa no.26(1-
2). It is the case of the plaintiff that earlier Ram Dass Chela
Garib Das was the owner of the aforesaid land, which is G
now recorded in the ownership of the defenda9t-respondent
vide Rapat No.508 dated 8.8.2003.

    3. The case of the respondent on the other hand is that
the suit property was leased to the appellant-plaintiff by its    H
934         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A     original owner Ram Dass Chela with effect from 12. 7 .1986
      to June, 1994 and then again from 29.5.1996 till 28.5.2005
      for a consideration of Rs.1,60,000/-. The respondent had
      purchased the suit property on 8.8.2000. The respondent-
      defendant pleaded that after expiry of the lease on
 B    28.5.2005 the suit property was to revert back to the
      defendant, but the plaintiff illegally and unlawfully wanted
      to grab the suit land and as such the respondent also filed
      a counter-claim in the said suit seeking a decree for
      mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to handover
C     vacant peaceful possession of the land to the defendant
      with damages at the rate of Rs.17,800/- per annum for
      unauthorized occupation of the suit land. Contesting this
      counter claim, plaintiff replied that after the expiry of lease,
D     plaintiff has become statutory tenant and his tenancy is
      protected by the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land
      Tenure Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "1953Act").
      It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is liable to pay fixed
      rent of Rs.3000/- per annum and not the amount which has
 E    been claimed by the defendant as damages.

       4. The trial court, after considering the pleadings and
  evidence led before it, dismissed the suit of the appellant
  but allowed the counter-claim holding that the plaintiff was
F not a Gair marusi but a tenant over the suit property whose
  tenancy had expired on 28.5.2005 and was a trespasser
  thereafter. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the
  plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed
  by the District Court upholding the findings of the trial court.
G The plaintiff-appellant then moved the High Court by way
  of second appeal contending that he was a tenant under
  section 4(5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Section
  2(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and
  therefore, could be evicted only on the grounds mentioned
H in Section 17 of the 1953Act. The appellant also contended
  SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                  935
         GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J]

that the lease deed produced by the respondent was not A
admissible in evidence as it was not registered.

     5. Dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff with costs,
learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the
appellant would not be a tenant after the expiry of the lease B
and would also not be entitled to protection under Section
9 of the 1953 Act as the respondent landlord had made his
intention of not extending the lease by filing a counter-claim
against the petitioner seeking possession. Section 9 of the
1953 Act protects subsistent tenancy and not a trespasser C
in possession after the expiry of the lease. Learned Single
Judge further held that though an unregistered lease deed
was not admissible in evidence, however as the lease deed
herein was meant for agricultural purposes, it was exempt
from registration under Section 117 of the Transfer of D
Property Act. Hence, the present appeal by special leave
by the plaintiff under Article 136 of the Constitution.

    6. We have heard Mr. Parveen H. Parekh, learned
senior counsel appearing for appellant and Mr. Manoj E
Swarup, learned counsel for the respondent. We have also
perused the impugned judgment and all the papers placed
before us. The question that arises for consideration is as
to whether the plaintiff-appellant became a trespasser after
expiry of the lease period or continued to be a tenant having F
protection for eviction under the tenancy laws.

     7. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant, referred relevant provisions of the Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and submitted that a G
tenant in possession of agricultural land cannot be held to
be a trespasser only because of expiry of the period for
which he was put in possession as a tenant. According to
the learned senior counsel, even after the expiry of the
lease or contract, he will continue as the statutory tenant H
936        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A  and not as the trespasser. Learned senior counsel put
   reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
   of Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab & ors., (1971) 1 SCC
   34, II. Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodai Ammal, (1979) 4
   SCC 214, and on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's
 B decision in Ram Lal vs. Darshan Lal & ors., (2008) 3 RCR
   (Civil) 427.

      8. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the
  respondent,_in support of his contention said that after the
C expiry of lease the lessee became a trespasser, relied upon
  decisions of this Court in R. II. Bhupal Prasad vs. State of
  A.P. & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 698, and the decisions of the
  Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Mandir
  Jhoke Hari Har& ors. vs. Ajit Kaur& ors., 1977 PLJ 315
D and Rameshwar vs. Sheo Chand & ors., 1981 PLJ 362.

          9. To decide rival claims of the parties, we think it
      appropriate to reproduce here relevant provisions of the law.

 E      10. In order to provide for the security of land tenure
   and incidental matters, the Punjab Security of Land Tenures
   Act, 1953 was enacted. However, such provisions of land
   security Act which are inconsistent with the newly enacted
   provisions of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holding Act, 1972
 F has been repealed. The provisions of 1953 Act still holds
   the field in many matters with regard to eviction and
   protection of tenants in the manner not provided in the Act.
   Section 2(6) of the Act defines the word 'Tenant' as under:··

          "Tenant" has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab
G
          Tenancy Act, 1887 (Act XVI of 1998), and includes a
          sub-tenant, and self-cultivating lessee, but shall not
          include a present holder, as defined in section 2 of the
          resettlement Act.
 H        11. Section 4(5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (in
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                       937
          GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

short, "1887 Act") defines the word 'tenant' as under:-           A

    "4. Definitions- In this Act, unless there in something
    repugnant in the subject or context,-
       xxxx
                                                                  B
      (5) "tenant" means a person who holds land under
      another person, and is or but for a special contract
      would be, liable to pay rent for U1at land to that other
      person; but does not include -

      (a) an inferior landowner, or                               c
      (b) a mortgagee of the rights of a landowner, or

        (c), a person. to Whom a holding has been
      transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in        D

      farm under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 (XVII
      of 1887), for the recovery of an arrear of land

      revenue or of a sum _recoverable as such an arrear
      or                                                          E

        (d) a person who takes from the Government a lease
     . of unoccupied land for the purpose of subletting it."

     12. Section 2(8) of the 1887 Act defines the word F
"tenancy" as a parcel of land held by a tenant of a landlord
under one lease or one set of conditions. Section 40 of
the said Act provides the grounds under which the tenant,
who is in occupation for a fixed term, can be ejected.
Section 40 rea\Js as under:                                  G

    "40. Grounds of ejectment of tenant for a fixed
    term-

    A tenant not having a right of occupancy but holding          H
938      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A       for a fixed term under a contract or a decree or order
        of competent authority, shall be liable to be ejected from
        his tenancy at the expiration of that term, and, on any
        of the following grounds, before the expiration thereof
        namely:-
B
          (a) that he has used the land comprised in the
          tenancy in a manner which renders it unfit for the
          purposes for which, he held it ;

c         (b) where rent is payable in kind, that he has without
          sufficient cause failed to cultivate that land in the
          manner, or to the extent customary in the locality in
          which the land is situate ;

          (c) on any ground which would justify ejectment under
D
          the contract decree or order."

      13. Reading the definition of tenant in both the Acts
  together would show that a tenant includes a self cultivating
  tenant and is liable to pay rent. Section 42 of the 1887 Act
E prescribes the procedure for ejectment, which is quoted
  hereinbelow:

        "42. Restriction of Ejectment-A tenant shall not be
        ejected otherwise that in execution of a decree for
 F      ejectment, except in the following cases, namely:-

          (a) when a decree for an arrear of rent in respect of
          his tenancy hasbeen passed against him and
          remains unsatisfied;
G         (b) when the tenant has not a right of occupancy and
          does not hold for a fixed term under a contract or a
          decree or order of competent authority."
       14. Coming back to 1953 Act, which provides the
H circumstances where the tenancy shall continue. Section
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                         939
          GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

8 reads as under:-                                                  A

    "8. Continuity of tenancies -

    The continuity of tenancy shall not be affected by-

    (a) the death of the landlord, or                               B

    (b) the death of tenant , except when the tenant leaves
    no male lineal descendants or mother or widow, and

    (c) any change therein under the same land-owner, and           C
    for the purposes of sections 17 and 18 of this Act, such
    tenancy shall be the last area so held."

     15. Section 9 of the 1953 Act provides the liability of
the tenant to be ejected from the land held by him. Section D
9 reads as under:-

    "9. Liability of the tenant to be ejected.-

    (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
    for the time being in force, no land-owner shall be             E
    competent to eject the tenant except when such tenant


      (i) is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or
      is a tenant of a small land-owner, {or}                       F

      (ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause,
      or

     (iii) is in arrears of rent at the commencement of this
     Act, or                                                 G

     (iv) has failed, or fails, without sufficient cause, to
     cultivate the land comprised in his tenancy in the
     manner or to the extent customary in the locality in
     which the land is situate, or                                  H
940   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2015] 2 S.C.R.


A     (v) has used, or uses, the land comprised in his
      tenancy in a manner which has rendered, or renders
      it unfit for the purpose for which he holds it, or

      (vi) has sublet the tenancy or a part thereof, provided
B     that where only a part of the tenancy has been sublet,
      the tenant shall be liable to be ejected only from such
      part, or

      (vii) refuses to execute a Qabuliyat or a Patta, in the
c     form prescribed, in respect of his tenancy on being
      called upon to do so by an Assistant Collector on an
      application made to him for this purpose by the land
      owner

      Explanation - For the purposes of clause (iii), a
D
      tenant shall be deemed to be in arrears of rent at the
      commencement of this Act, only if the payment of
      arrears is not made by the tenant within a period of
      two months from the date of notice of execution of
 E    decree or order, directing him to pay such arrears of
      rent.

      (2)] Notwithstanding anything contained hereinbefore
      a tenant shall also be liable to be ejected from any
      area which he holds in any capacity whatever in
 F
      excess of the permissible area;

      Provided that the portion of the tenancy from which
      such tenant can be ejected shall be determined at
      his option if the area of his tenancy under the land-
G     owner concerned is in excess of the area from which
      he can be ejected by the said land owner;

      Provided further that if the tenant holds land of
      several land-own~rs and more than one land-owner
 H    seeks his ejectment, the right to ejectment shall be
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                       941
          GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

      exercised in the order in which the applications have A
      been made or suits have been filed by the land-
      owners concerned, 'and in case of simultaneous
      applications or suits the priority for ejectment shall
      commence serially from the smallest land-owner.
                                                             B


      Explanation.- Where a tenant holds land jointly with
      other tenants, only his share in the joint tenancy shall
      be taken into account in computing the area held by         c
      him."

    16. Section 10 makes provision for restoration of tenant
ejected after 15th August, 1947. The said provisions are as
under:-
                                                                  D
    "10. Restoration of tenant ejected after the 1s•h of
    August, 1947-

  (1) Where a tenant has been ejected from any land in
      excess of the permissible area on grounds other than E
      those mentioned in section 9, before the
      commencement of this Act, and after the 15th August,
      1947, and such land is under self-cultivation, such
      tenant shall, [subject to the provisions of this Act be
      entitled to be restored to his tenancy in the manner F
      prescribed on the same terms and conditions on
      which it Was held by him at the time of his ejectment,
      on an application made to an Assistant Collector of
      the first Grade having jurisdiction, within one year
      from the date of intimation of reservation after the G
      commencement of this Act, or, if no such reservation
      is made within the period specified in sub-section(3)
      of section 5, two years from the date of
      commencement of this Act;
                                                              H
942      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 2 S.C.R.


A          Provided that if more tenants than one have been
          ejected from the same tenancy, the right of
          application for restoration shall be exercisable in
          serial order of priority commeJ']cing from the tenant
          first ejected and to the extent in each case of the
B         permissible area, after taking into account any other
          tenancy or land which the ejected tenant holds at the
          time of his application for restoration.

      (2) On receipt of an application the Assistant Collector
c         shall, after giving to the parties notice in writing and
          a reasonable opportunity to be heard, determine the
          dispute summarily, and shall keep a memorandum
          of evidence and a gist of his final order with brief
          reasons therefor.
D
      (3) When an application has been made, any
          proceedings in relation to the same matter pending
          in any other court or before any other authority shall
          be stayed on receipt of information by that court or
E         authority from such assistant collector of the fact of
          having received the application, and all such
          proceedings in a court or before any authority shall
          lapse when the dispute has been determined by the
          Assistant Collector acting under this Act.
F'
      (4) A land-owner or any other person in actual
          possession of land at the time of restoration shall be
          entitled to such compensation as may be determined
          by the Assistant Collector, from the tenant intended
G         to be restored for any loss suffered in consideration
          of anything done prior to the date of his first receiving
          information of the application.

         Provided that no ejected tenant shall be restored to
H        his tenancy as provided hereinbefore unless he has
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                    943
          GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

      paid compensation as determined by the Assistant A
      Collector to the land-owner or other person, if any as
      the case may be."

     17. Section 14-A provides for ejectment and recovery
of arrears of rent which reads as under :-                     B

    "14-A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
    contained in any other law for the time being in force,
    and subject to the provisions of section 9-A.-

      (i) a land owner desiring to eject a tenant under C
      this Act shall apply in writing to the Assistant
      Collector First Grade having jurisdiction, who
      shall thereafter proceed as provided for in sub-
      section (2) of sub-section 10 of this Act, and the D
      provisions of sub-section (3) of the said section shall
      also apply in relation to such application, provided
      that the tenants rights to compensation and
      acquisition of occupancy rights, if any under the
      Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), shall not E
      be affected;

    Provided that if the tenant makes payment of arrears
    of rent and interest, to be calculated by the Assistant
    Collector, First Grade, at eight per centum per annum F
    on such arrears together with such costs of the
    application, if any, as may be allowed by Assistant
    Collector, First Grade, either on the day of first hearing
    or within fifteen days from the date of such hearing, he
    shall not be ejected                                       G

      (ii) a land-owner desiring to recover arrears of rent
      from a tenant shall apply in writing to the Assistant
      Collector Second Grade, having jurisdiction, who
      shall thereupon send a notice in the form prescribed     H
944      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A        to the tenant either to deposit the rent or value thereof
         , if payable in kind or give proof of having paid it or
         of the fact that he is not liable to pay the whole or
         part of the rent or of the fact of the landlords refusal
         to receive the same or to give a receipt, within the
B        period specified in the notice. Where, after summary
         determination, as provided for in sub-section (2) of
         Section 10 of this Act, the Assistant Collector finds
         that the tenant has not paid or deposited the rent he
         shall eject the tenant summarily and put the
c        landowner in possession of the land concerned;

         (iii) (a} if a landlord refuses to accept rent from his
         tenant or demands rent in excess of what he is
         entitled to under this Act, or refuses to give a receipt,
D        the tenant may in writing inform the Assistant
         Collector second Grade, having jurisdiction of the
         fact;

         (b) on receiving such application, the Assistant
E        Collector shall by a written notice require the landlord
         to accept the rent payable in accordance with this Act,
         or to give a receipt, as the case maybe , or both
         ,within 60 days of the receipt of the notice "

F      18. Perusal of Section 18 of 1953 Act would show that
  the tenant have also been given right to purchase the land
  if he is in continuous possession of the land for a minimum
  period of six years. This Section even gives a right to a
  tenant, to purchase land, who was ejected from his tenancy
G after 141h August, 1947 and who was in continuous
  possession of the land for a period of six years.

      19. Considering the provisions of Sections 9, 14, 14A
  and 18 together, we have no doubt in our mind that a tenant
H of an agricultural land is liable to be evicted only in the
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                  945
          GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

manner provided under the Act notwithstanding any contract A
on the basis of which tenant occupied possession of the
land for the purpose of cultivation. We are also of the view
that action for eviction of a tenant can be taken before a
Revenue Authority to whom power and jurisdiction has been
conferred by the said Act.                                   B

      20. The defendant-respondent's own case in the written
statement is that the appellant-tenant came in possession
of the land in 1986 and remained in continuous possession
till 2005. Indisputably, the appellant's name was recorded C
in Jamabandies, which is evident from the Exhibit P-1 and
P-2. Khasra Girdwari entries are also in the name of
appellant. The trial court without appreciating the evidence
came to the following conclusion that the appellant became
a trespasser. The court held:-                               D

    "The jamabandies produced by both the parties are self
    contradictory. The jamabandies produced by the plaintiff
     name of the plaintiff is entitled in the gair marusi record
    and chakota as the name is entered at Rs.3,000/- per E
     annum and Ram Dass Chela Garib Dass has given the
    aforesaid land to Shyam lal on lease from 29.5.1956
    to 28.5.2005 for Rs. 1,60,000/-. Therefore, it proves
    that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property
    is termed to be a trespasser and plaintiff has not having F
    any right to remain over the suit property as tenant. It ·
    is also pointed out that if the plaintiff is a gair marusi
    tenant. He has to prove on file the payment made by
    him to the land owner but there is nothing on record
    to prove this fact that the plaintiff has paid any amount G
    to the defendant/land owners."

     21. The Appellate Court, although took notice of the
entries in the .revenue record wherein plaintiff-appellant was
recorded as Gair Marusi, held that those entries are without H
946         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 2 S.C.R.


A     any basis and liable to be ignored. The learned Appellate
      Court further held that after the expiry of lease period in
      2005 the appellant loses authorization to hold possession
      of the land and his right to hold possession is not more than
      a trespasser.
 8
      22. Similar provisions have been made in the Orissa
  Tenancy Act, 1913. Section 3(23) is the definition of tenant
  which means a person who holds land under another
  person, and is, but for a special contract would be, liable
C to pay rent for that land to that person.

           23. Sub-section 2 of Section 5 of the Orissa Act defines
      the term "Raiyat", which means primarily a person who has
      acquired the right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating
o     it by himself or by person of his family or by hired servants
      and also includes successors-in-interest or person who have
      acquired such right. Further, where a tenant of land has
      the right to bring it under cultivation shall be deemed to have
      acquired a right to hold it for the purpose of cultivation.
E
          24. We find similar definition of tenant under the
      Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Section 5(43) defines the
      word 'tenant' as under :-

          "(43) "Tenant" shall mean the person by whom rent is,
 F
          or, but for a contract, express or implied, would be,
          payable and except when the contrary intention
          appears, shall include -

          (a)        in the Abu area, a permanent tenat or
G               protected tenant,

          (b)        In the Ajmer area, an ex-proprietary tenant or
                an occupancy tenant or a hereditary tenant or a
                non-occupancy tenant or a Bhooswami or Kashtkar,
H
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                947
          GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

      (c) in the Sunel area, an ex-proprietary tenant or a A
        pakka tenant or an ordinary tenant,

      (d)    a co-tenant,

      (e)    a grove-holder,
                                                            B
      (f)    a village servant

      (ff)   a tenant holding from a landowner,

      (g)    a tenant of Khudkasht,                         c
      (h)    a mortgages of tenancy rights, and

      (i}    a sub-tenant

    but shall not include a grantee at a favourable rate of D
    rent or an ijaradar or a thekadar or a trespasser"

     25. Now we shall discuss the decisions relied upon by
the learned counsel on either side. In Dhanapal Chettiar's
 case (supra), the question that came for consideration E
before the larger Bench of this Court was as to whether
.under the Rent Control Act notice under Section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act is necessary for the purpose of
proceeding against the tenant for his eviction on the
grounds mentioned in the Rent Control Legislation. This F
Court held that in the case of eviction under the Rent Act,
the tenancy actually terminates on the passing of the order
or decree for eviction. Hence, determination of a lease in
accordance with the Transfer of Property Act is not
necessary and a mere surplusage because the landlord G
cannot get eviction of the tenant even after such
determination. The tenant continues to be so even
thereafter.

    26. Similarly the decision relied upon by the respondent H
                                                •
948      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A in Bhupal Prasad's case (supra) is also have no
  application in the present case inasmuch as it was a case
  under the Rent Control Act. In our considered opinion, the
  aforesaid two decisions of this Court deal with the status
  of the tenant under the Rent Control Act after the expiry of
B fixed term lease and the right of landlord to get eviction on
  certain grounds. In the case of tenant holding agricultural
  land, the tenancy and procedure of ejectment of tenant are
  governed by relevant State Tenancy Laws, which are special
  Act and such tenancy is not covered by Transfer of Property
c Act.
       27. In the case of Sukhdev Singh (D) thr. Lrs. & ors.
  vs. Puran & ors., [SLP(C)No.18654 of 2008], a Bench of
  this Court on consideration of the provisions of the Punjab
D Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 was of the opinion that
  after the expiry of the fixed term tenancy in respect of
  agricultural land, the provision of 1953 Act will have no
  application. The Court observed:-

E         "ln our view, the aforesaid argument of the learned
       counsel does not merit acceptance. Admittedly, the
       petitioners were granted lease of the suit land in 1955
       for a period of 20 years and the term of their lease
       ended in 1975. Section 9 of the 1953 Act is attracted
F      only when a tenant is sought to be evicted. The said
       section is not applicable to a case where the tenancy
       gets terminated by efflux of time and the person
       occupying the lease premises no longer remains tenant.
       There is no provision in the 1953 Act similar to those
G      contained in the Urban Rent Control Legislations under
       which a tenant becomes statutory tenant after expiry
       of the contractual tenure of the tenancy."

      28. In the case of Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab,
H (1971) 1 SCC ·34, considering the provisions of Sections
  SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                  949
         GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

9, 14A and Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land A
Tenure Act, 1953 and discussing the right of the tenant to
purchase the land, this Court held:

   "6. It was urged that since Section 18 commences with
   a non-obstante clause viz. "Notwithstanding anything to     B
   the contrary contained in any law, usage or contract",
   if a proceeding in ejectment is lodged against the tenant
   which ulitmately is allowed, the tenant cannot make a
   claim during the pendency of the proceeding to
   purchase the land. To hold otherwise, it was urged,         C
   would enable a tenant in default to defeat the claim in
   a suit in ejectment by commencing a proceeding for
   purchasing the land. We do not think that the
   expression "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
   contained in any law, usage or contract" whittles down      D
   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 land-owner. Under the Act, the tenancy      E
   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. If a          F
   tenant is in default in payment of rent the land-owner
   desiring to recover rent due by the tenant may apply
   in writing to the Assistant Collector who shall thereupon
   send a notice to the tenant to deposit the rent due or
   give proof of having paid it. If the tenant fails to pay    G
   the rent or give proof of payment, the Assistant
   Collector shall, after a summary inquiry, if he is of the
   view that the tenant has not paid or deposited the rent,
    eject the tenant summarily and put the land-owner in
    possession of the land concerned. But so long as the H
950        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A         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."

B      29. In Sanwat Singh vs. Zail Singh, (1997) 9 SCC
  468, while discussing tenant's right under 1953Act in a case
  where the land in possession of the tenant is sold by the
  owner of the land, this Court held that a tenant as defined
  under Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 means a person who holds
C the land under another person and is, but for a special
  contract, would be, liable to pay rent and he is liable to be
  evicted only under certain conditions as provided under
  Section 9 of the said Act. Referring Section 9 of the said
  Act, this Court held:
D
       "5. In other words, notwithstanding anything contained
       in any other law for the time being in force, including
       the law relating to prescription, a tenant in possession
       of the demised property by the vendor is not liable to
E      ejectment except in accordance with the provisions
       contained in Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land
       Tenures Act, 1953. It is not his case that he has
       contravened any of the provisions and is liable to be
       ejected. Even otherwise, if his case is that he has
F      contravened any of the provisions, unless appropriate
       action in accordance with law is taken and order
       passed, he is entitled to resist unlawful interference with
       the possession. Thereby, the decree granted by the
       appellate court and confirmed by the High Court is not
G      correct in law."

           30. In Tulsi vs. Paro, (1997) 2 SCC 706, this Court
      after considering provisions of Section 105 of the Transfer
      of Property Act observed:
H
SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                      951
       GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

"It is not necessary that lease should always be reduced      A
to writing. What is necessary is for transfer of a right
of enjoyment of the property made for a certain time,
expressed or implied and for consideration of the price,
paid or promised, the transferee must have been put
in possession of the demised property. It is also             B
necessary that an agreement can be entered into for
rendering periodical service and for consideration
thereof and on transfer of the land to the transferee and
acceptance thereof, either orally or in writing, the lease
comes into existence. It is seen that when the name           C
of the appellant has successively found place in the
records for the period from 1951-52 to 1971-72 as
"tenant at will", the necessary conclusion is that he is
a tenant at will liable to eviction according to law. The     D
theory that he is a licensee, as has been accepted by
the High Court and the trial court, is untenable. A
licensee has no right in the property, not to speak of
any right to the exclusive possession of the property
and animus of possession always remains with the              E
licensor; the licensee gets the possession only with the
consent of the licensor and is liable to vacate when so
asked. In this case, since the appellant remained in
uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property
for over 20 years, it is unthinkable to conclude that they    F
are only licensee. The High Court and the trial court,
therefore, were clearly in error in reaching the
conclusion that the appellant is only a licensee. On the
other hand, from the facts, it is clear that the appellant
is a tenant and he will be liable for ejectment only in       G
accordance with law. If he is otherwise entitled to
tenancy right of the property, the right can be had in
accordance with law and it is open to him to work out
the same in accordance with law."
                                                              H
952      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 2 S.C.R.


A      31. In the case of Ram Lal vs. Darshan Lal and ors.,
  (2008) 3 RCR (Civil) 427, a Bench of Punjab and Haryana
  High Court was considering the right of the tenant conferred
  by Section 9 of the 1953 Act. In that case, the tenant was
  in possession of the agricultural land on the basis of the
B lease for 20 years. Upon expiry of the said lease period, a
  suit for possession was filed contending that after expiry of
  the lease the tenant's possession became illegal and
  unauthorized. Hence, he is liable to be evicted by obtaining
  a decree from civil court. Rejecting the contention of the
C landlord, the High Court held that in terms of provisions
  contained in 1953Act, a tenant shall be evicted only on the
  grounds mentioned in Section 9 of the said Act. The Court
  observed
D      "6. In Shri Raja Durga Singh Versus Tho/u and others,
       AIR 1963 SC-361, the Court found that suit for
       possession and mesne profits against the defendant
       who claims to be occupancy tenant and status as
       tenant is not barred from the cognizance of the Civil
E      Court. However, in the present case, it is the admitted
       fact that defendant No.1 was inducted as tenant for a
       period of 20 years. Therefore, the question which
       requires to be examined is whether after the expiry of
       the period of lease, the tenant can be evicted by filing
F
       a Civil Suit for possession. The said question was not
       the question raised or decided in the aforesaid
       judgment. Therefore, even the said judgment provides
       little assistance to the appellant.
G      7. In the present case, the. Punjab Security of Land
       Tenures Act, 1953 protects the tenancy of agricultural
       land in favour of the tenant. The Punjab Security of
       Land Tenures Act, 1953 specifies the grounds of
       eviction which are available to the landlord. The eviction
H
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA                    953
          GARIB DASS [M. Y. EQBAL, J.]

     of a tenant after the expiry of lease is not a ground A
     mentioned therein. Therefore, after the expiry of lease,
     the tenant would be a statutory tenant and such tenant
     can be evicted only in terms of one or the other grounds
     of eviction contemplated under Section 9 of the Punjab
     Security of land Tenures Act, 1953. Such eviction B
     proceedings have to be initiated before the competent
     Revenue Court. Therefore, I do not find any illegality
     or irregularity in the finding recorded that the Civil Court
     has no jurisdiction to grant a decree for possession."
                                                                c
      32. Taking into consideration the various tenancy laws
 applicable in the State of Punjab and the law discussed by
 this Court and the High Court, in our considered opinion
 the trial court, the appellate court and the High Court have
 committed error of law in holding that a tenant of agricultural D
. holding becomes a trespasser after the expiry of period of
 tenancy. The High Court and the lower courts have failed
 to consider that the agricultural tenancy are governed by
 the State Tenancy Laws which are special Acts for the
 purpose of regulating the tenancy and protecting the tenants E
 from eviction without following the procedure provided in
 those State Laws. The procedure for eviction of tenant in
 occupation of building by approaching the civil court under
 Rent Control Act will not be applicable for evicting the F
 tenants holding agricultural land. We are further of the view
 that it is the Revenue Court specially empowered to take
 action for eviction of tenant in the manner provided under
 the Act notwithstanding any contract on the basis of which
 the tenant occupied possession of the agricultural land for G
 the purpose of cultivation.

    33. Be that as it may, in Sukhdev Singh's case (supra)
a Bench of this Court on consideration of the provisions of
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was of the H
954         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 2 S.C.R.


A opinion that after the expiry of fixed term tenancy in respect
  of agricultural land, the tenancy gets terminated by efflux
  of time and person occupying the lease premises no longer
  remains tenant. With due respect, we are not in agreement
  with the view taken by this Court in Sukhdev Singh's case
B (supra).

           34. In the aforesaid circumstances, to maintain judicial
      discipline, the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench
      for laying down a correct law.
c
          35. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place the
      record before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for placing
      the matter before a larger Bench.
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                          Matter referred to
                                                   Larger Bench