Holding

Section 8 does not add a new ground of termination but imposes a minimum three‑year term, and a tenancy may be terminated either on the grounds listed in Section 7 or in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Summary

The appeal concerned the interpretation of Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. The petitioner argued that Section 8, which imposes a minimum tenancy term of three years for tenancies created after the 1956 amendment, does not create an additional ground of termination and that a landlord must wait three years before ending a tenancy on any ground. The Court examined the scheme of the three sections, holding that Section 7 lists the specific grounds for termination, Section 7A adds extra grounds for tenancies existing at the time of the amendment, and Section 8 merely sets a minimum term of three years for new tenancies while still allowing termination on the grounds of Section 7. Consequently, a tenancy may be terminated on any of the grounds in Section 7 at any time, and Section 8 provides for termination after the three‑year period as a separate statutory provision. The Court dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether Section 8 of the PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 creates an additional ground of termination (expiry of the tenancy) for tenancies commencing after the 1956 amendment
Whether a landlord must wait for a period of three years before terminating a tenancy, even on the grounds enumerated in Section 7

Legislation cited

Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955s. 7, s. 7A, s. 8

Subjects

tenancyagricultural landterminationminimum termstatutory interpretationPEPSU Actland reform

Judgment

6~8
A

BHARTU
B
v.
RANDHIR SINGH & ORS.

January 22, 1985
c [0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.]

Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1955 Sections 7, 1A and 8.

Whether landowner has to wait for a term of three years before terminal
ing tenancy.
D
The PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 which was
originally passed in 1955 and amended in 1955 was again amended in 1956. The
Act purports to amend and consolidate the law relating to tenancies of agri-
cultural land and to provide fqr certain measures of land reforms.

A tenancy may be terminated in accordance with the provisions of the
E Act or on any of the grounds enumerated in section 7 ; namely non-payment of
rent within a period of six months, subleting without written consent,,cessation
of personal cultivation of the tenant, user of the land in a manner which is likely
~-
to render it unfit, and refusal by the tenant on demand in writing to execute a
kabuliyat.

In the case of tenancies subsisting at the cornmencerr:ent of the Pepsu
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, section 7·A
F provided for two grounds for termination of tenancy in addition to the grounds
specified in section 7, namely, (i) that the land comprising the tenancy has been
reserved by the landlord for his personal cultivation in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter·II, and (ii) that the landowner owns 30 standard acres
or Jess of land and the land falls within his permissible limit.

In the case of tenancies commencing after the commencement of Pepsu
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, section 8
G provided that the minimum term of the tenancy shall be three )ears, subject to •
the provisions of section '1.

In the appeals to this Court on the question, whether in the case of
tenancies commencing after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, section 8 provided for an
additional ground for terminating a [tenancy, namely, the expiry of the period
H of tenancy provided it is not less than three years.
BHARTU V. RANDHIR SINGH (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 639
A
Dis missing the Appeals,

HELD : The proper way of looking at the scheme of sections 7, ?·A
and 8 is to hold that while section 7 enumerates the grounds on which any
tenancy may be terminated, section 7~A provides for additional grounds on
which tenancies subsis ing at the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Second Ame11dment) Act, 1956 may be terminated and B
section 8 provides for the termination of a tenancy commencing after the
commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amend-
ment) Act, 1956 apart from the grounds mention·.d in section 7. Thatjs why
section 7 itself uses the word 'no tenancy shall be terminated except in accor-
dance with the provisions of the Act or except on any of the following grounds.'
• that is to say, a 1enancy may be terminated either on the grounds mentioned in
section 7 or in accordance with the provisions of the Act. [642A-C] c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 803, 834 to
83J of 1971.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4th January, 1971 of
Punjab & Haryana High Court at Cha11digarh in Letters Patent D
Appeal No. 22( of 1970.

T. S. Krishna Murthy Iyer and E.C. Agarwala for the Appel-
!ant.

V. C. Mahajan, Mrs. Urmila Sirur and Sanjive Puri for the E
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Though we confess that during the course
of the hearing we did feel somewhat perplexed as to the proper cons- F
truction to be placed on the provisions of secs. 7, 7 A and 8 of the
PEPSU Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, on second thou-
ghts we think that only one conclusion is permissible. The PEPSU
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 which was originally
passed in 1955 and amended in 1955, was again amended in 1956.
The Act purports to amend and consolidate the law relating to tenan-
cies of agricultural land and to provide for certain measures of land
G
reforms. Section 3 broadly defines "permissible limit" for the pur-
poses of the Act to mean 30 standard acres of land and where such
30 standard acres on being converted into ordinary acres exceed 80
acres, such 80 acres. Section 5 enables every land owner owning land
exceeding 30 standard acres to select for personal cultivation from the
land held by him in the Stiite in parcel or parcels of land not eJ1ceed- H
640 SUPREME COUR r REPOR rs [1985] 2 S.C.R.
A
ing in the aggregate the permissibie limit and reserve such land for
personal cultivation by intimating his selection in the prescribed form
aLd manner to the Collector. Section 6 requires the Collector to
notify the particulars of all lands reserved for personal cultivation of
a land-owner under sec. 5. Chapter IV-A (secs. 32-A to 32-NN) deals
B with ceiling on land and acquisition and disposal of surplus area. In
particular sec. 32-A provides that notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in any law, customs, usage or agreement, no person shall
be entitled to own or hold as land-owner or tenant land under his
personal cultivation within the State which exceeds in the aggregate
the permissible limit. The subsequent provisions provide for the
c determination of the surplus area and sec. n-E provides for the ves-
ting of surplus area in the State Government. We have to note here
that sec. 32-00 provides that tenancies created after the commence-
ment of the 1956 amendment in any area which could have been
declared as surplus area have to be declared for the purposes of deter-
mining the surplus area of any person. Section 32-F vests the Collec-
D
tor with the power to take possession of surplus area and sec. 32-J
rescribes the modes of disposal of surplus area. We are not really
concerned with all those provisions for the present purpose. Chapter
III of the Act deals with "General rights of tenancy". Section 7
prescribes that no tenancy shall be terminated except in accordance
E with the provisions of the Act or except on any of the foll owing
grounds. The grounds mentioned are non-payment of rent within a
period of six months after it falls due, subletting without the consent
in writing of the land-owner, cessation of personal cultivation of the
tenant in the manner and to the extent customary in the locality,
user of the land or any part of it in a manner which is likely to render
F it unfit for the purpose for which the land was leased and the refu-
sal by the tenant, on demand in writing, to execute a kabuliyat agree-
ing to pay rent in accordance with the statutory provisions. What
has to be particularly noticed is that the tenancy cannot be termina-
ted except in accordance with the provisions of the Act or except on
any of the grounds mentioned in sec. 7. In other words, a tenancy
G may be terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Act or on
any of the grounds mentioned in sec. 7. Therefore, it means that the
tenancy may be terminated on any grounds mentioned in sec. 7 or in
accordance with the provisions of the Act provided, of course, other
provisions of the Act provide for the termination of tenancy. In the
case of tenancies subsisting at the commencement of the Pepsu
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, sec.
H 7-A provides for two grounds for termination of tenancy in addition
BHARTU v. RANDHIR SINGH (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 641 A

to the grounds specified in sec. 7, namely, (i) that the land comprising
the tenancy has been reserved by the landowner for bis personal cul-
tivation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-II and \ii) that
the landowner owns 30 standard acres of less land and the land B
falls within bis permissiiJle limit. In the case of tenancies commencing
after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, sec. 8 provides that the mini-
mum term of the tenancy shall be three years, subject to the pro vi-
sions of sec. 7. The question raised for consideration in the present
~
.. case is whether in the case of tenancies commencing after the com-
mencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second
c
Amendment) Act, 1956, sec. 8 provides for an additional ground for
terminating a tenancy, namely, the expiry of the period of tenancy
provided it is not less than three years. The learned counsel for the
appellant argued that sec. 8 is made expressly subject to the provi-
sions of sec 7 and when it prescribes that the minimum period of D
tenancy shall be three years, it cannot possibly mean that the tenancy
....J may be terminated before the expiry of the term of three ye~rs
According to the learned counsel, sec. 8 means that a tenancy may
not be terminated on any ground whatsoever for three years but may
be terminated after the term of three years but may be terminated
on any of the grounds mentioned in sec. 7. Such a construction in our
opinion would lead to some absurd and anomalous results. For
example, one of the grounds mentioned in sec. 7 which enables E
the termination of the tenancy is the user by the tenant of the land
.... in a manner which is likely to render the land unfit for the purpose
for which it was leased to him. If the construction placed upon sec. 8
by the appellant is to be accepted, a tenant may, with impunity as
soon as the land is leased to him, use the land in a manner to render
F
the land unfit for the purpose for which it was leased to him, yet the
,.. land-owner would have to wait for a term of three years before
terminating the tenancy. This appears to us to be an absurd conse-
~ quence and it ;, not possible for us to accept a construction which
will lead to such disastrous results. The only alternate consrutction
of sec. 8 is to hokl that quite distinctly from the provisions of sec. 7, G
a tenancy may not be terminated within a period of three years after
' its commencement if the tenancy commenced after the commence-
ment of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amend-
ment) Act, 1956, that is to say, while the provisions of sec. 7 would
always be available in the case of tenancies commencing after the
Second Amendment Act, a tenant may also be evicted on the termi
nation of the period of tenancy which shall not be less than thre
years. So construed it may appear as if the words 'subject to the pro- H
642 SUPREME COCRT REPORTS [1985] 2 S.C.R.
A visions of sec. 7' are being read by us as 'notwithstanding the provi-
sions of sec. 7 ; but that may not be a correct way of looking at what
we have said. The proper way of looking at the scheme of secs. 7,
7-A and 8 is to hold that while sec. 7 enumerates the grounds on
which any temncy may be terminated, sec. 7-A provides for addi-
tional grounds on which tenancies subsiting at the commencement of
B the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands \Second Amendment) Act,
I 956 may be terminated and sec. 8 provides for the termination of a
tenancy commencing after the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment), 1956, apart from the
grounds mentioned in sec 7. That is why sec. 7 itself uses the word 'no
tenancy shall be terminated except in accordance with the provisions
of the Act or except of any of the following grounds,' that is to say, a
c tenancy may be terminated either on the grounds mentioned in sec. 7
or in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We think that this
is the only reasonable and permissible way of construing sec. 8 in the
setting of secs 7, 7-A and 8. The view taken by us appears to have
been taken consistently by the Punjab High Court in the last 15 years
and construing as we are doing a State Act, we do not think that-
D there are any compelling reasons justifying any departure from the
view taken by t~e Punjab High Court for so long. The appeals are,
therefore, dismissed. No Costs.

N. V.K. Appeal dismissed.

•