Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
; Lal Chand v. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Assistant Collector : 2002(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P&H) 627 Sections 4(5) and 4(8)—Tenancy—Is constituted by the factum of cultivation plus • payment of rent—In present case, respondent claimed to be tenants but no receipts of payment of rent have been produced—Claim vitiated.; Orakurdwara Nityanand Mandir Khudan v. Dharmpal ; 2003(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (F.C. Hry.) 226 Ss. 4(5) and (6)—Landlord and tenant—Relationship of—Plea that relationship of landlordand tenant come to an end as ejectment order passed for non-payment of rent for Rabi 1983—Such order and plea would not govern the relationship earlier to Rabi 1983; 1990(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 391. S. 4(5)—Appellant claims possession as a tenant—The question of fact has been decided against.the appellant by the lower appellate Court—And mere mention of word "chair Marusi" does not clothe him with that status; 1995(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER 10. • Sections 4(6) and 14— Landlord: is a person under whom the tenant holds the land and to whom tenant is liable to pay rent— But the term in Section 14 is not used in relation to a tenant as the land may not been occupied with consent—And inspite of tenant having given up possession of the land, landlord is liable for arrears are made recoverable under Section 77(3) (n) of the Punjab TenancyAct— Strictly speaking inspite of the tenant having gone out of the land, the owner remains a landlord till the arrears are paid/recovered.; Vijay Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others : 2003(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Pb. & Hry.) 515 Sections 4(6), 14 & 77—Whether a mortgagee in possession can successfully maintain a suit for recovery of rent from landlord/mortgagor is the question to be decided—In this case the petitioner is the mortgagee with possession and the respondents 5 to 9 are the mortgagees now as tenants inducted by the plaintiff himself—Version of the plaintiff that dependents 5 to 9. are in possession of the land, possession parted with by petitioner by an oral agreement as parties had good relations— Even if the defendants had occupied the land forcibly, they would 8 0-HE PUNJAB TENANCYACT, 1887 THE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, 1887 9 Section:- 6 4, & 4(3)—Vesting of Rights in Panchayats and non proprietors—Appellants had not accorded a status similar to occupancy tenants by custom or otherwise (though not recorded as occupancy tenants in the revenue record), such as Dholidars, Bhomidars, Butimars, Basikhuophaus, Saunjidars and Muciararidars- Appellants were not mortgagees in favour of whom, the land was mortgaged with possession— The Panchayat had vested right in the land in dispute. Held, Section 4(3) will be attracted only if the following 3 conditions are satisfied :- i) the person must be cultivating land which is part of Shamlat deh of village ii) he should be cultivating such land for a period of 12 years immediately preceeding the commencement of the Act; and iii) he should be cultivating such land without payment of charges in excess of the land revenue ancrcess. ; Puran & Ors. y. Gram Panchayat, Faridabad : 2006(2) . ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER-(Supreme Court) 319 Sections 5 and 8, Right of Occupancy—Such is based on title—Title is not made out—Appellants could not establish that they took the suit land from Gram panchayat in the year 1966 and held the land under the Gram Panchayat as lessee and occupied it consciously for thirty years in the manner described in sub Section (2) of Section 5—They are precluded from establishing a right of occupancy. ; Puran & Ors. v. Gram Panchayat, Faridabad : 2006(2) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (Supreme Court) 319 Sections 5, 8 and 84—Occupancy rights—Grant of—Cultivation of land proved for being more than 30 years—Crucial Jamabandi on the record for relevant year is tampered copy—Photocopy of the duly attested jamabandi is at variance with copy of Jamabandi on record—Collector directed to decide afresh after summoning original revenue record and giving full opportunity to the parties.; Het Ram v. Badlu : 2002(3) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (FC, Hry.) 87 —S. 5(2)—Occupancy tenant—Tenant—Tenant in continuous possession of a price of land for more than 30 years and paying no rent beyond the amount of land revenue—Presumption is that such a tenant fulfills the conditions of clause (a) for Section 5(1)—Entitled to claim apportionment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Acti1990(1) ALL INDIA CAND LAWS REPORTER 53. Section 5(3) & 82—Application is for review of order recorded by the previous F.C.—Finding recorded are that hone of tenants, petitioners, have qualified the condition of holding the tenancy for over 30 years—Not entitled to get benefit under Section 5 of the Tenancy Act—Held—•This finding of fact cannot be challenged in review—No merit in review application—Disallowed.; Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab ;1998(1) ALL INDIA LAND LAWS REPORTER (P.C., Pb.) 490