Validity of orders u/s 14A of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, is open to scrutiny in Civil Court, if tenant disputes existence of landlord-tenant relationship: SC

Read Judgment: Assa Singh (d) By Lrs. vs. Shanti Parshad (d) By Lrs. & Others

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, November 25, 2021: The Supreme Court has opined that when the relationship between landlord and tenant is contested, the Civil Court continues to have the jurisdiction despite the bar u/s 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. 

A Division Bench of Justice K.M. Joseph & Justice S. Ravindra Bhat therefore observed that the validity of the orders u/s 14A of the 1953 Act is open to scrutiny in a Civil Court, in a situation, when the tenant denies and disputes the case of the landlord that there is a landlord-tenant relationship. 

Further, a mere plea by the tenant, should not lead, without anything more, to render the Authorities helpless and bereft of power to order eviction, added the Court.  

Going by the background of the case, an application for ejectment filed by Assa Singh (d) By Lrs (Appellants) and Proforma Respondents 2 to 21 for ejectment of Shanti Parshad (d) By Lrs (first Respondent) on the ground of non-payment of rent, under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, was allowed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ferozepur. The appeal before the Collector, Ferozepur u/s 24 of the 1953 Act challenging such ejectment application also came to be dismissed. 

Challenging the same, a revision petition was filed before the Commissioner, who recommended to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab for setting aside the order leaving the parties to seek relief through the Civil Court. This reference was disallowed and the revision petition of Shanti Prasad was dismissed. 

Aggrieved, a suit was instituted before the Trial Court, which decreed the Suit. This order was also confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. Hence, present appeal. 

It was contended on behalf of the Respondent that the bar on the Section 25 of the 1953 Act will not apply, having regard to the fact that there is a dispute relating to the very existence of landlord-tenant relationship. 

It was further contended on behalf of Respondent that the ouster of the Civil Court’s jurisdiction does not apply in view of the fact that plaintiff-tenant does not admit that the appellants are his landlords. 

After considering the arguments and evidences, the Top Court observed that Civil Court would have the power in a case where without it being a frivolous challenge to the landlord tenant-relationship, in a genuine dispute relating to landlord-tenant relationship, the orders passed by the authorities under the 1953 Act can be found to be null and void for the reason that transgressing the power conferred, the authorities proceed to decide the matter, which is the vexed issue relating to the very existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. 

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Joseph elaborated that if a landlord-tenant relationship is disputed, despite the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Revenue Court, to even Order eviction of a tenant, the Civil Court would still retain jurisdiction in a case where there is a dispute relating to landlord-tenant relationship. 

Hence, the Top Court dismissed the appeal.