SHYAM LALversusDEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

                            [2016] 5 S.C.R. 893



                              SHYAM LAL                                   A
                                    v.
       DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS
                   (Civil Appeal No. 4245 of2012)
                        .     JULYOS,2016                                 B

  [RANJAN GOGOi, ARUN MISHRA AND PRAFULLA C.
                   PANT, JJ.]
      Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 - ss. 9 and 14A
rlw. ss. 39 and 40 of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 - Agricultural
tenancy/lease - For fixed term - Under the Act - Availability of
                                                                          c
protection under the 1953 Act for eviction/ejectment of the tenant/
lessee - After expiry of the term of tenancy/lease - Lease agreement
(unregistered) for a fixed term - Tenant/lessee remained in possession
of the land even after the term of tenancy - Tenant filed suit for
injunction restraining the landlord from ousting him from the             D
property - Cross-objection of land-lord seeking mandatory
injunction for vacation from the property on the ground that the
tenant had ceased to be a tenant on expiry of period of lease -
Order of eviction of tenant - Affirmed by High Court - On appeal,
Division Bench of Supreme Court differed with the view in *Sukhdev
                                                                          E
Singh case whereby it was held that a tenant under the 1953 Act
ceases to be one, on expiry of the fixed term tenancy under the
contract, whereafter he is not entitled to statutory protection from
eviction - Hence matter referred to Larger Bench - Held: As the
lease agreement was unregistered, the same would not be admissible
in evidence by virtue of s. 107 of Transfer of Property Act and ss.       F
 17 and 49 of Registration Act - Hence, cannot be looked into for
determination of duration of the lease - The lease has to be deemed
to be a lease from year to year - The tenant/lessee remained in
 possession of the land beyond the legally presumptive period, with
the implied consent of the land-lord - Thus, the tenant acquired the
status of 'tenant holding over ' or a 'tenant at will' - Therefore, the   G.
tenant whose lease has expired would not be tenant within purview
of 1953 Act rlw relevant provisions of 1887 Act - But continuation
of possession after expiry of lease duration with the consent of the
land-lord would confer the status of 'tenant' to the occupant on the
                                                                          H
                                    893
894           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016) 5 S.C.R.


A     principle of holding over in view of s. 116 of Transfer of property
      Act - Therefore, such tenant would be entitled to protection under
      1953 Act - Transfer of Property Act,1882 - s. 106, 107 and 116 -
      Registration Act, 1908 - ss. 17 and 49.
           Allowing the appeal, the Court
B           HELD: 1. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not to be
      applicable to the State of Punjab (including the present State of
      Haryana which was included in the erstwhile State of Punjab).
      However, by a Gazette Notification dated 26'h March, 1955
      (No.1605-R(CH)-55/589) published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette
      dated 1" April, 1955 the provisions of Sections 54, 107 and 123
c     of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were extended to the entire
      State of Pun.jab with effect from 1" April, 1955. Sections 54, 107
      and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were further applied
      to the PEPSU area of that State with effect from 15'h May, 1957
      by Notification dated 15'h May, 1957 published in the Pun.jab
D     Government Gazette (Extraordinary). [Paras 13 and 14) [902-E-
      F; 903-A-B]
           2. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act requires
      annual leases of immovable property to be made by a registered
      instrument. Though Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act,
E     1882 makes the provisions of Chapter V, which includes Section
      107, inapplicable to agricultural leases, Section 117 has not been
      made applicable to the State of Punjab by the notifications referred
      to above. Therefore, the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer
      of Property Act, 1882 would apply with full force and vigor to all
      leases of immovable property including agricultural leases in the
F     State of Punjab (including Haryana). [Para 15) [903-E-G]
           3. In the present case the appellant tenant remained in
      possession of the land for the fixed term envisaged in the lease
      agreement i.e. from 29'h May, 1996 to 28'h May, 2005 and even
      thereafter. As the lease in question was not a registered
G     instrument and as Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act
      has no application to the State ofHaryana, in view of the provisions
      of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act read with Section
      107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the terms of the lease
      deed would not be admissible in evidence and, therefore, cannot
H     be looked into for the purpose of determining the duration of the
  SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB                          895
                       DASS

lease. [Para 17] [904-B-D]                                               A
      4. If the lease in the instant case has to be deemed to be a
lease from year to year and the terms thereof cannot be. looked
into to determine the total duration thereof what would follow is
that the tenant remained in possession beyond the legally
presumptive period of the lease (one year) with the implied               B
consent of the landlord. In the present case such consent ceased
to exist only upon institution of the cross objection in the suit
filed by the tenant. The tenant, therefore, acquired the status of
a tenant holding over or a tenant at will, which would confer on
him protection under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act,
1953 requiring the landlord to establish proof of any of the
                                                                          c
conditions specified in Section 9 of the 1953 Act before being
entitled to a decree of eviction. [Para 18] [904-F-G]
     5. Thus, to be entitled to protection from eviction under
the 1953 Act any person claiming such protection has to come
within the fold of the expression "tenant" under the 1953 Act             D
read with the relevant provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.
Statutory protection would be available only to a statutory tenant,
namely, a tenant under the Act. The Punjab Act of 1953 read with
the relevant provisions of the 1887 Act do not include a tenant
whose lease has expired. Nevertheless, retention/continuance              E
of possession after expiry of the duration of the lease with the
consent of the landlord will continue to vest in, the erstwhiie tenant
the same status on the principle of holding over. Such continuance
even after expiry of the deemed period of the lease under Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as in the present case, would
clothe the occupant with the status of a tenant under the Act in          F
view of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act which deals
with the consequences of holding over. The operation of Section
116 of the Transfer of ProP,erty Act would confer legitimacy to
the possession of the tenant even after the termination or
expiration of the deemed period of the lease so as to confer on           G
him a status akin to that of a statutory tenant and hence protection
from eviction as envisaged by the provisions of the Act of 1953.
[Para 18] [904-G-H; 905-A-D]
      Anthony v. KC. lttoop & Sons & Ors. 2000 (1) Suppl.
      SCR 645 : (2000) 6 SCC 394 - distinguished.                         H
896               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 5 S.C.R.



A              Sukhdev Singh (Dead) through legal representatives and
               Ors. v. Puran and Ors. (2015) 12 SCC 344 - referred
               to.
                                Case Law Reference
              (2015) 12 sec 344              referred to          Para 1
B
              2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 645        referred to          Para 17

              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4245 of
      2012.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2010 of the High Court
c     of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R. S. A. No. 3785 of2009.
            P. H. Parekh, Sr. Adv., E.  R:Kumar, Kshatrshal Raj, Ms. Ritika
      Sethi, Vishal Prasad, (For. Mis. Parekh & Co.), Ad vs. for the Appellant. .
           Manoj Swarup, Ankit Swarup, Ms. Tanya Swarup, Rohit Kumar
O     Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the
      tenant who is aggrieved by an order of eviction affirmed by the High
      Court following the expiry of period of lease.
E
            A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Sukhdev Singh (Dead)
      through legal representatives and Ors. V. Puran and Ors. 1 has taken
      the view that a tenant under Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953
      (hereinafter referred to as the '1953 Act') ceases to be one on expiry
      of the fixed term tenancy under the contract whereafter he is not en.titled
 F    to the statutory protection from eviction as envisaged under the Act. A
      Co-ordinate Bench, for reasons indicated, could not agree with the
      aforesaid view iG-Suklulev Singh (supra). Hence this reference for an
      answer on a question that may be formulated as hereunder:
                   Whether after the expiry of the fixed term tenancy in
G              respect of an agricultural lease under the Punjab Security
               of Land Tenure Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the
               1953 Act") the tenancy gets automatically terminated and
               the person occupying the leased premises ceases to be a
               tenant?
H     1
          c201si 12   sec 344
  SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB                                897
               DASS [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

      2. It will be useful to notice, at this stage, some of the relevant      A
provisions of the Statutes dealing with the issue. "Tenant" is defined by
Section 2(6) of the 1953 Act in the following terms:
      "Tenant" has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy
      Act, I 887 (Act XVI of 1998), and includes a sub-tenant, and self-
      cultivating lessee, but shall not include a present holder, as defined   B
      in section 2 of the Resettlement Act."
      3. Section 4(5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter
referred to as "the 1887 Act") defines "tenant'' as under:
      "4. Definitions- In this Act, unless there in something-t;epugnant
      in the subject or context,-                                              C
                                  xxxx
      (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
      that land to that other person; but does not include -
      (a) an inferior landowner, or                                             D
      (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 farm under the Punjab Land Revenue
      Act 1887 (XVII of 1887), for the recovery of an arrear of land
                                                                                E
      revenue or of a sum _recoverable as such an arrear or
      (d) a person who takes from the Government a lease ofunoccupied
      land for the purpose of subletting it."
      4. The 1887 Act confers occupancy rights on the occupants of
land who fulfill the requirements spelt out by s'ection 5 thereof. An           F
occupancy tenant is liable forejectment under the 1887 Acton the grounds
specified in Section 39(1 ), namely,
      (a) that he has used the land comprised in the tenancy in a manner
      which renders it unfit for the purpose for which he held it;
      (b) where rent is payable in kind, that he has without sufficient         G
      cause failed to cultivate that land in the manner or to the extent
      customary in the locality in which the land is situate;
       (c) when a decree for an arrear ofre11t in respect of his tenancy
       has been passed against him and remains unsatisfied.
                                                                                H
898             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016) 5 S.C.R.



A          5. On the other hand, under Section 40 of the 1887 Act, a tenant
      who does not have a right of occupancy but holds the land for a fixed
      term under a contract is liable to be ejected from his tenancy on the
      expiry of the term of the lease and before such expiration on the following
      grounds:
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;
             (b) where r(\Jlt is payable in kind, that he has without sufficient
             cause failed to cultivate that land in the manner or to the extent
c            customary in the locality in which the land is situate ;
             ( c) on any ground which would justify ejectment under the contract
             decree or order."
           6. Section 9 of the 1953 Act which deals with the liability of a
      tenant to be ejected is in the following terms:
D
             "9. Liability of the tenant to be ejected.-
             (!) Notwithstanding anything contained in any.other law fot the
             time being in force, no land-owner shall be competent to eject the
             tenant except when such tenant -
 E           (i) is a tenant on the area reserved under this Act or is a tenant of
             a small land-owner, or
             (ii) fails to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause, or
             (iii) is in arrears ofrent at the commencement of this Act, or
 F           (iv) has failed, or fails, without sufficient cause, to cultivate the
             land comprised in his tenancy in the manner or to the extent
             customaryjn the locality in which the land is situate, or
             {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
 G           he holds it, or
             (vi) has sublet the tenancy or a part thereof, provided 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) ref.ujes to execute a Qabuliyat or a Patta, in the form
 H
       SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB                              899
                    DASS [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

           prescribed, in respect of his tenancy on being called upon to do so    A
           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 tenant ·shall be
           deemed to be in arrears of rent at the commencement.ofthisAct,
           only ifthe payment of arrears is not made by the tenant within a        B
           period of two months from the date of notice of execution of
           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 excess of the permissible area;                c
                 Provided that the portion of the tenancy from which such
           tenant can be ejected shall be determined at his option ifthe area
           of his tenancy under the land-owner concerned is in excess of the
           area from which he can be ejected by the said land owner;
                Provided further that ifthe tenant holds land of several land-     D
           owners and more than one land-owner seeks his ejectment, the
           right to ejectment shall be exercised in the order in which the
           applications have 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       E
           smallest land-owner.
           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 him."
           7. It.will be necessary at this stage to take note of Section 14A of    F
     the 1953 Act which deals with, the procedure for ejectment:
           "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 this Act shall · G
           apply in \~Titing to the Assistant Collector First Grade having
           jurisdiction; who shall theteafterproceed as provided forin sub-
           section (2) of sub-section 10 of this Act, and the provisions of
           sub-section (3) of the said section shall- also apply in relation to
                                                                                H
900            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 5 S.C.R.



A           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 be affected;
            Provided that if the tenant makes payment of arrears of rent and
            interest, to be calculated by the Assistant Collector, First Grade,
B           at eight per centum per annum 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
            (ii) a land-owner desiring to recover arrears ofrent from a tenant
c           shall apply in writing to the Assistant Collector Second Grade,
            havingjurisdiction, who shall thereupon send a notice in the form
            prescribed to the tenant either to deposit the rent or value thereof
            , if payable in kind or give proof ofhaving 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,
D           within the period specified in the notice. Where, after summary
            determination, as provided for in sub-section (2) of Section I 0 of
            th is Act, the Assistant Collector finds that the tenant has not paid
            or deposited the rent he shall eject the tenant summarily and put
            the landowner in possession of the land concerned;
E           (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, the tenant may in writing inform the
            Assistant Collector second Grade, havingjurisdiction of the fact;
            (b) on receiving such application, the Assistant Collector shall by
 F          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"
           8. Before proceeding any further it must be clarified that both the
      enactments i.e. the 1887 Act and the 1953 Act are in force and continue
G     to operate in their respective fields. Insofar as common spheres are
      concerned, the 1953 Act by virtue of the 11011 obsta11te clause in the
      relevant provisions prevail over the pari materia provisions of the 1887
      Act. Section 40 of the .1887 Act dealing with ejectment of tenants and
      Section 9 of the 1953 Act is one instance where such an interplay
      between the provisions of the two Acts occur.
H
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB                                 901
                DASS [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

        9. The arguments advanced on behalf of the rival parties relate to        A
 a true and proper construction of the provisions of Section 9 and 14-A of
 the 1953 Act in the light of the definition of"tenant" under both the Acts
 and also the provisions of Section 39 and 40 of the 1887 Act. It is
 argued that the appellant herein is a selfccultivating lessee and, therefore,
 a tenant under Section 2(6) of the 1953 Act entitling him to protection
                                                                                  B
 under Section 9 of the Act. A person who is a.tenant under the 1953 Act
 can be ejected only on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 9 of
 the 1953 Act. Such protection does not cease merely on the expiry of
 period of tenancy in view of the statutory protection granted under the
 Act. In fact the contractual tenancy loses all relevance in case of a
 lessee who is a tenant under either of the statutes in question. Though          c
 under Section 40 of the 1887 Act eviction of a tenant on completion of
 the period of lease is contemplated, there is no such provision in the
 1953 Act. The non obstante clause in Section 9 gives the said provision
 of the 1953 Act an overriding effect over the aforesaid provisions of the
  1887 Act. Sub-section (viii) of Section 9 of the Act of 1953, introduced
                                                                                  D
 by Punjab Act 17of2011 (not made applicable to the State of Haryana)
 has also been placed before the Court. Besides, the procedure for
·ejectment/eviction must necessarily conform to what is spelt out in Section
  14-A of the 1953 Act and proceedings for eviction must be before the
 Reven.ue authority and not ttie Civil Court. These are the broad
 propos,itions that have been advanced on behalf of the appellant to answer       E
 the question aris.ing.                ·           .
      10. In reply,it is contended that statutory protection to a t((nant
would be available after the expiry of the fixed term lease only if the
definition of tenant under the Act is broad enough to include a person
whose contractual period of tenancy is o~r. No such provision. exists             F
either under the 18.87 Act or the 1953 Act. The definition of tenant.in
either of the Statutes does not include a tenant whose period of tenancy
is over. In the absence of any such provision, a person whose period of
lease is over ceases to be a tenant and, therefore, is not entitled to the
protection under the 1953 Act. A self- cultivating lessee would be a
tenant under the Act only for the duration of the lease. On expiry of the         G
period of the lease he would cease to be a tenant unless the statute
specifically provides for such a status which is not so provided for by
either of the Acts i.e. Act of 1953 and of 1887.
       11. In the present case, admittedly, eviction of the tenant had not
                                                                                  H
902             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 5 S.C.R.



A     been sought on any of the grounds enumerated in Section 9 of the 1953
      Act and by following the procedure under Section 14-A of the 1953 Act.
      In fact, it is the appellant before this Court who had filed a suit for
      injunction seeking a restraint on his ouster and it is in the said suit that
      the respondent - landlord, as the defendant, had filed a cross-objection
      seeking mandatory injunction for the vacation of the premises by the
B
      appellant-tenant on the ground that he had ceased to be a tenant on
      expiry of the period oflease.
            12. Having noticed the elaborate arguments advanced on behalf
      of the parties, we may now proceed to deal with the specific question
      referred to us, as noticed above, and in this regard take note of the
c     questions formulated by the High Court for an answer in the second
      appeal before it which is in the following terms-
             (i) Whether a tenant/lessee of agricultural land can be ordered to
             be evicted by way of suit for mandatory injunction or the only
             remedy with the landlord is to seek eviction under the provisions
D            ofthe Punjab Security of Land TenuresAct, 1953
             (ii) Whether the lease deed of an agricultural land is admissible in
             evidence in the absence ofregistered instrument as required under
             Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17
             of the Registration Act, 1908.
E
            13. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as evident from opening
      provision thereof, makes it Clear that it is not to be applicable to the State
      of Punjab (including the present State ofHaryana which was included in
      the erstwhile State of Punjab). However, by a Gazette Notification
      dated 261h March, 1955 (No. I 605-R(CH)-55/589) published in the
F     Punjab Govt. Gazette dated 1st April, 1955 (Part I, page 3 72) the
      provisions of Sections 54, 107 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act,
      1882 were extended to the entire State of Punjab with effect from 1st
      April, 1955. The Gazette Notification in question reads as follows:
                 "The 26'h March, 1955 No.1605-R(CH)-55/589. In
G            exercise of the powers conferred by section 1 of the
             Transfer of Property Act, IV of 1882, and all other powers
             enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is
             pleased to extend the provisions of sections 54, 107 and
             123 of the said Act with effect from the 1" April, 1955 to
             the entire State of Punjab. The Punjab Government
H
  SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB                               903
               DASS [RANJAN GOGOI, ~.]

      notification No.183-ST dated the 27'h April, 1935, is hereby             A
      cancelled."
      14. Sections 54, 107 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 were applied to the PEPSU area of that State with effect from
15'h May, 1957 by Notification dated 15'h May, 1957 published in the
Punjab Government Gazette (Extraordinary) (at page 633 dated 15'h              B
May, 1957), which is in the following terms:
                   "Punjab Government Gazette
                           Extraordinary
                      Published by Authority
             Chandigarh, Wednesday, May 15, 1957                               c
                       Revenue Department
                            Notification
                        The 15'h May, 1957
      No.305-ST-57/2166.- In exercise of the powers conferred
      by section 1 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central
      Act IV of 1882), and all other powers enabling him in this               D
      behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to extend the
      provisions of Sections 54, 107 and 123 of the said Act to
      the territories which, immediately before the 1st November,
      1956, were comprised in the State of Patiala and East Punjab
      States Union, with effect from the date of publication of this           E
      notification in the official Gazette."
      15. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which has
been made applicable to the State of Punjab (including Haryana) by the
above notifications require annual leases of immovable property to be
made by a registered instrument. Though Section 117 of the Transfer of         F
Property Act, 1882 makes the provisions of Chapter V, which includes
Section I 07, inapplicable to agricultural leases, Section 117 has not been
made applicable to the State of Punjab by the notifications referred to
above. Therefore, the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 would apply with full force and vigor to all leases of
immovable property including agricultural leases in the State of Punjab        G
(including Haryana).
      16. The above is inextricably connected to the issue of detennination
of the primary question arising, namely, whether the lease between the
parties is a fixed tenn lease or not, a question that would depend for its
                                                                               H
904             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 5 S.C.R.



A     answer on the terms of the lease deed between the parties. Unfortunately
      and regrettably the Gazette Notifications referred to above were not
      brought to the notice of the High Court leading the High Court to answer
      the question framed by holding that Section 117 of the Transferof Property
      Act makes the provisions of Section I 07 inapplicable to an agricultural
      lease and therefore the tenns of the lease can be looked into for a
B
      determination of the above question.
            17. It is not in dispute that in the present case the appellant tenant
      remained in possession of the land for the fixed term envisaged in the
      lease agreement i.e. from 29 1h May, 1996 to 281h May, 2005 and even
      thereafter. As the lease in question was not a registered instrument and
c     as Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application to the
      State ofHaryana, in view of the provisions of Sections 17 and 49 of the
      Registration Act read with Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act,
      1882 the terms of the lease deed would not be admissible in evidence
      and, therefore, cannot be looked into for the purpose of detennining the
D     duration of the lease. Though in Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons &
      Ors.= it was held that in such a situation a oral lease not exceeding one
      year can be presumed it must not be lost sight that in Anthony ($upra)
      the lease in question was one under the Ke_rala Buildings (Lease and
      Rent Control) Act, 1965, namely, a non-agricultural lease. In the present
      case, the leas_e being admittedly ;m agricultural lease the same can be
E
      deemed to be from year to year in view of the provisions ofSe~tion 106
      of the Transfer of Property Act.
             18. If the lease in the instant case has to be deemed to be a lease
      from year to year and the terms thereof cannot be looked into to determine
      the total duration thereof whafwould follow is that the tenant remained
F     in possession beyond the legally presumptive period of the lease (one
      year) with the implied consent of the landlord. In the present case such
      consent ceased to exist only upon institution of the cross objection in the
      suit filed by the tenant, as mentioned earlier. The tenant, therefore,
      acquired the status of a tenant holding over or a tenant at will, which
G     would confer on him protection under the 1953 Act requiring the landlord
      to establish proof of any of the conditions specified in Section 9 of the
      1953 Act before being entitled to a decree of eviction. From the above
      it would necessarily .follow that to be entitled to protection from
      eviction under the 1953 Act any person claiming such protection
      '(2000) 6 sec 394 ·
H
   SHYAM LAL v. DEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB                             905
                DASS [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

has to come within the fold of the expression "tenant" under.the             A
1953 Act read with the relevant provisions of the 1887 Act.
Statutory protection would be available only to a statutory tenant,
namely, a tenant under the Act. The Punjab Act of 1953 read with
the relevant provisions of the 1887 Act do not include a tenant
whose lease has expired. Nevertheless, retention/continuance
                                                                              B
of possession after expiry of the duration of the lease with the
consent of the landlord will continue to vest in the erstwhile tenant
the same status on the principle of holding over. Such continuance
even after expiry of the deemed period of the lease under Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act, as in the present case, would
clothe the occupant with the status of a tenant under the Act in              c
view of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act which deals
with the consequences of holding over. The operation of Section
116 of the Transfer of Property Act would confer legitimacy to the
possession of the tenant even after the termination or expiration of the
deemed period of the lease so as to confer on him a status akin to that of
                                                                             D
a statutory tenant and hence protection from eviction as envisaged by
the provisions of the Act of 1953.
      19. We accordingly answer the question referred in the above
terms, and allow this appeal and further set aside the order of the High
Court under challenge.
                                                                              E
K:ilpana K. T~ipat)ly                                      Appeal allowed.