RSA-4043-2015 (O [336] Basir (now Nasir Coram : Present : Pankaj Jai [1] [2] original po respondent [3] consequent late Jasmal on paymen the year 19 and defend Section 8 asserts that share of th from erstwh contribute h 015 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGA RSA-4043 Date of De r (now deceased) through his LRs versus Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj J Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate fo Mr.Bharat Bhushan Sharma, *** aj Jain, J. Defendants are in appeal. For convenience, parties here nal position(s) as in the Civil Suit, ndent as plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking equential relief of permanent injunctio asmal son of Med Khan was gair mou ayment of 1/2 batai under one Raghu ear 1971-1973. The tenancy rights of efendants being the lineal male desce on 8 of the Punjab Security of Lan that he along with defendants beca of the suit property. Defendants in erstwhile owner namely Raghubir son ibute half of the sale consideration. P OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 4043-2015 (O&M) of Decision :09.02.2026 …Appellants ….Respondent nkaj Jain cate for the appellants. rma, Advocate for the respondent. s hereinafter are referred to by the , i.e. appellants as defendants an eeking decree of declaration with th junction. As per the plaintiff, his fath mourusi tenant over the suit proper Raghubir son of Daula. Jasmal died hts of Jasmal were inherited by plainti descendants in equal shares in terms o of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Plainti became tenant in possession in equ ants intended to purchase the proper bir son of Daulta. He asked plaintiff ion. Plaintiff claims to have contribute 1 by their and ith the is father property died in plaintiff terms of Plaintiff equal property intiff to tributed RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.21 19:33 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4043-2015 (O towards sal deed. He in his name dated 14.06 suit land an effect that plaint to th illegal, null of permane [4] [5] possession cultivating relationship lawful own denied that [6] First Instan 015 (O&M) sale consideration and the expense . He claims that the defendant clandes s name only. It has been pleaded tha 14.06.1974, defendants want to depri and and also from his tenancy rights. t that he is owner in possession of th to the extent of 1/2 share and tha al, null and void and not binding on his rmanent injunction restraining defenda Suit was contested by the defen As per the defendant, he ession of the suit land. Plaintiff vating possession of the suit property ionship between the previous owner a ul owner in possession of the suit lan d that the plaintiff ever contributed to Suit filed by the plaintiff was Instance framing following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is the land in dispute desc to the extent of ½ share, 2. Whether the impugned bearing Vasika No.124 14.07.1977 are illegal, upon the rights of the p aside? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff permanent injunction as xpenses borne for execution of the sa landestinely got the sale deed registere ed that under the garb of said sale dee deprive plaintiff of his 1/2 share in ights. Plaintiff sought declaration to th n of the suit land as detailed out in th that sale deed dated 14.06.1974 on his rights. He further sought decre efendants from alienating the suit land e defendant. he is in actual physical cultivatin intiff was neither tenant nor ever roperty. There was no landlord-tena wner and the plaintiff. Basir remain uit land since 14.06.1974. Defendan ted to the sale deed. iff was put to trial by the Court of th ff is the owner and in possession of described in para No.1 of the plaint are, as alleged? OPP gned sale deed dated 14.06.1974 .1248 and mutation No.707 dated gal, null and void and not binding he plaintiff and are liable to be set tiff is entitled to the relief of n as prayed for? OPP 2 the sale gistered ale deed in the n to the t in the .1974 is t decree it land. ltivating ver in tenant emained fendants t of the n of aint 974 ated ing set of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.21 19:33 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4043-2015 (O [7] found that year 1968, suit land in evidence to of rent mad Jasmal wa defendants possessory possession prove the s Court of t plaintiff. [8] Appellate C upon Sectio Appellate C 1/2 share No.2 were injunction h 015 (O&M) 4. Whether the suit is not m 5. Whether the plaintiff ha of action to file the prese 6. Whether the plaintiff is suit by his own act and c 7. Whether the suit is time 8. Relief.” While deciding Issue Nos.1 & d that though plaintiff claims that afte 1968, the plaintiff and defendants rem and in equal shares, but plaintiff faile nce to prove his possession over the la made by him. Documents (Exhib was tenant over the suit propert dants came in possession of the sui ory right, plaintiff was required ession after death of his father, Jasm e the same, the plaintiff is not entitle t of the First Instance accordingly tiff. Unsuccessful plaintiff prefe llate Court reversed the findings reco Section 8 of the Punjab Security of llate Court found that the plaintiff pro hare of the suit property. Findings rec were reversed and plaintiff was held ction holding him tenant over ½ share not maintainable? OPD ff has no locus-standi and no cause present suit? OPD ff is stopped from filing the present nd conduct? OPD time barred? OPD os.1 & 2, the Court of the First Instanc at after death of his father Jasmal in th remained in joint possession of th f failed to prove the same. There is n r the land in dispute or to show payme Exhibits P-1 to P-7) depict that earli roperty. After the death of Jasma the suit land. Right of tenancy bein uired to prove that he came in joi Jasmal. There being no evidence entitled to decree of declaration. Th ingly dismissed the suit filed by th preferred an appeal. The Low s recorded by the Courts below relyin ity of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Low tiff proved to be tenant in possession o gs recorded by the Trial Court on Issu as held entitled to decree of permane share of the suit property. 3 use sent Instance in the n of the re is no payment t earlier Jasmal, y being in joint ence to The by the Lower relying Lower ssion of on Issue rmanent RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.21 19:33 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4043-2015 (O [9] recorded by no evidenc over the su recorded by contends t erstwhile o basis thereo only on 06. no evidenc Appellate C tenant. [10] settled law, of the parti After his d defendants plaintiff pu his favour, [11] through rec [12] possession tenure, Sta 1953. As Act shall h 015 (O&M) Counsel appearing for the ded by the Courts below. It has been c idence to prove that the plaintiff ever the suit property, the Lower Appellate ded by the Court of the First Instance nds that the appellants-defendants hile owner vide registered sale deed d thereof was sanctioned on 14.04.197 on 06.08.2008, i.e. after 34 years of r vidence that the plaintiff ever contrib llate Court held him to be in possessio Per contra, counsel for the d law, the tenancy rights are inheritab e parties, namely Jasmal, was in poss r his death the tenancy rights devolv dants equally, yet defendants in or tiff purchased the whole property. U vour, defendants cannot be allowed to I have heard counsel for the gh records of the case. There is no dispute with regar ession of the suit property as tenant. In e, State of Punjab enacted the Punja s per Section 2(6) of the 1953 Ac shall have the same meaning as assig the appellants assails the finding been contended that despite there bein ff ever remained in possession as tena pellate Court wrongly reversed finding stance on Issue Nos.2 and 7. He furth dants purchased suit property fro deed dated 14.06.1974. Mutation on th 4.1977. The present suit was institute rs of registration of sale deed. There contributed to the rent, yet the Low ssession of 1/2 share of suit property r the respondent submits that as heritable. It is admitted fact that fath n possession of the suit land as tenan devolved upon the plaintiff as well a in order to defeat the rights of th Under the garb of sale executed wed to defeat the rights of the plaintiff or the parties and have carefully gon regard to father of the parties being ant. In order to provide security to lan Punjab Security of Land Tenures Ac 53 Act ‘tenant’ for the purpose of 195 s assigned to it in the Punjab Tenanc 4 findings re being s tenant findings further ty from n on the stituted There is Lower perty as per at father s tenant. well as of the cuted in laintiff. lly gone being in o land res Act, of 1953 Tenancy RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.21 19:33 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4043-2015 (O Act, 1887. under:- [13] the tenant Section 4 tenant of of 1887 Ac [14] 015 (O&M) 1887. Section 4(5) of the Punjab Tena (5) " tenant" means a person person, and is, or but for a sp pay rent for that land to tha include :- (a) an inferior landow (b) a mortgagee of th (c) a person to whom or an estate or ho the Punjab Lan recovery of an ar recoverable as su (d) a person who take of unoccupied lan Section 4(7) of the Punjab Te tenant shall include the predecesso (8) of 1887 Act defines ‘tenancy a landlord under one lease or one 87 Act defines ‘rent’. The bare provis “Section 4(7) “tenant” a predecessors and successors landlord, respectively. Section 4(8) “tenancy” mean tenant of a landlord under one Section 4(3) “rent” means wh in money, kind or service by a occupation of land held by him The Lower Appellate Court re b Tenancy Act, 1887 defines ‘tenant’ a erson who holds land under anoth a special contract would be, liable o that other person, but it does n ndowner, or of the rights of a landowner, or hom a holding has been transferre r holding has been let in farm, und Land Revenue Act, 1887, for th n arrear of land revenue or of a su s such an arrear, or takes from the [Government] a leas land for the purpose of subletting it jab Tenancy Act, 1887 provides that ecessors and successors-in-interest, enancy’ as a parcel of land held by a one set of conditions. Section 4(3) provisions read as under:- ” and “landlord” include the ssors-in-interest of a tenant and means a parcel of land held by a one lease or one set of conditions: s whatever is payable to a landlord by a tenant on account of the use or him.” ourt relied upon Section 8 of 1953 Ac 5 nant’ as nother ble to es not ferred, under r the a sum lease ng it. s that terest, a (3) the and y a ns: lord e or 53 Act, RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.21 19:33 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4043-2015 (O which read [15] it abundant remains un leaves mal plaintiff an question re [16] tenancy, he per the 188 or by servi from his fa tenant by p There bein possession that the Lo over the s 015 (O&M) h reads as under:- “8. Continuity of tenancies. not be affected by- (a) the death of the la (b) the death of the leaves no [male] widow, and (c) any change therei for the purposes o such tenancy shal A combined reading of the afo undantly clear that the tenancy under ins unaffected and continue even aft male lineal descendants. Thus, tiff and defendants were entitled to inh tion remains: “Did both of them inherit the t Tenancy is a bilateral relatio he needs to hold parcel of land und 1887 Act, the rent can be paid in m service. Thus, even though plaintiff his father, he was required to prove t by proving payment of rent as per e being no evidence on record to pro ession of the suit property or paid rent the Lower Appellate Court erred in ho the suit property merely for the re . The continuity of a tenancy sha he landlord, or the tenant except when the tena ale] lineal descendants or mother o erein under the same landowner; an ses of sections 17 and 18 of this Ac shall be the last area so held.” the aforesaid provisions would make nder law is inheritable. The tenancy en after the death of a tenant if he on death of their father, both to inherit the tenancy. However, the the tenancy?” lationship. For a person to claim under landlord by paying rent. A monetary terms, it can be in kind aintiff was entitled to inherit tenancy rove that he came in possession as a as per set of conditions of tenancy to prove that plaintiff ever came in d rent to the landlord, this Court finds d in holding the plaintiff to be tenant the reason he happens to be male 6 shall tenant her or r; and is Act, make nancy if he both r, the claim . As kind nancy n as a ancy. me in finds tenant male RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.21 19:33 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-4043-2015 (O descendant male desce necessarily inferred. erred in re misreading Findings re hereby rest be dismisse aside the ju [17] hereby allo [18] disposed of 09.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma’ 015 (O&M) endant of the erstwhile tenant. Sectio descendants of deceased tenant can co ssarily mean that tenancy in favour Accordingly, this Court finds th in reversing findings recorded by t ading Section 8 of the 1953 Act. The ings recorded by the Court of the Fi restored. Accordingly, the suit file issed, restoring the judgment passed the judgment and decree passed by th In view of the above, the pre allowed. All miscellaneous pending ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable Section 8 of 1953 Act, provides that can continue tenancy, but it does not avour of each male descendant be inds that the Lower Appellate Court d by the Trial Court on Issue No.2 . The same are ordered to reversed the First Instance on Issue No.2 are uit filed by the plaintiff is ordered to passed by the Trial Court and setting by the Lower Appellate Court. he present appeal is accepted and is ding application(s), if any, stands (Pankaj Jain) Judge : Yes/No : Yes/No 7 that es not be Court No.2 sed. .2 are red to ting nd is tands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.04.21 19:33 I agree to specified portions of this document